The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Complete

A >> Abraham Lincoln >> The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Complete


Now, sirs, for the purpose of squaring things with this idea of "don't
care if slavery is voted up or voted down," for sustaining the Dred Scott
decision, for holding that the Declaration of Independence did not mean
anything at all, we have Judge Douglas giving his exposition of what the
Declaration of Independence means, and we have him saying that the people
of America are equal to the people of England. According to his
construction, you Germans are not connected with it. Now, I ask you in
all soberness if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if
confirmed and indorsed, if taught to our children, and repeated to them,
do not tend to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to
transform this government into a government of some other form. Those
arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as
much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be
done for them as their condition will allow,--what are these arguments?
They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in
all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of
kingcraft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the
people not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better
off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the
Judge is the same old serpent that says, You work, and I eat; you toil,
and I will enjoy the fruits of it. Turn in whatever way you will, whether
it come from the mouth of a king, an excuse for enslaving the people of
his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for
enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent; and I
hold, if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of
convincing the public mind that we should not care about this should be
granted, it does not stop with the negro. 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 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 tear it out! Who is so
bold as to do it? If it is not true, let us tear it out! [Cries of "No,
no."] Let us stick to it, then; let us stand firmly by it, then.

It may be argued that there are certain conditions that make necessities
and impose them upon us; and to the extent that a necessity is imposed
upon a man, he must submit to it. I think that was the condition in which
we found ourselves when we established this government. We had slavery
among us, we could not get our Constitution unless we permitted them to
remain in slavery, we could not secure the good we did secure if we
grasped for more; and having by necessity submitted to that much, it does
not destroy the principle that is the charter of our liberties. Let that
charter stand as our standard.

My friend has said to me that I am a poor hand to quote Scripture. I will
try it again, however. It is said in one of the admonitions of our Lord,
"As your Father in heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect." The Savior, I
suppose, did not expect that any human creature could be perfect as the
Father in heaven; but he said, "As your Father in heaven is perfect, be
ye also perfect." He set that up as a standard; and he who did most
towards reaching that standard attained the highest degree of moral
perfection. So I say in relation to the principle that all men are
created equal, let it be as nearly reached as we can. If we cannot give
freedom to every creature, let us do nothing that will impose slavery
upon any other creature. Let us then turn this government back into the
channel in which the framers of the Constitution originally placed it.
Let us stand firmly by each other. If we do not do so, we are turning in
the contrary direction, that our friend Judge Douglas proposes--not
intentionally--as working in the traces tends to make this one universal
slave nation. He is one that runs in that direction, and as such I resist
him.

My friends, I have detained you about as long as I desired to do, and I
have only to say: Let us discard all this quibbling about this man and
the other man, this race and that race and the other race being inferior,
and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position; discarding our
standard that we have left us. Let us discard all these things, and unite
as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up
declaring that all men are created equal.

My friends, I could not, without launching off upon some new topic, which
would detain you too long, continue to-night. I thank you for this most
extensive audience that you have furnished me to-night. I leave you,
hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there
shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal.




SPEECH AT SPRINGFIELD, JULY 17, 1858.

DELIVERED SATURDAY EVENING

(Mr. Douglas was not present.)

FELLOW-CITIZENS:--Another election, which is deemed an important one, is
approaching, and, as I suppose, the Republican party will, without much
difficulty, elect their State ticket. But in regard to the Legislature,
we, the Republicans, labor under some disadvantages. In the first place,
we have a Legislature to elect upon an apportionment of the
representation made several years ago, when the proportion of the
population was far greater in the South (as compared with the North) than
it now is; and inasmuch as our opponents hold almost entire sway in the
South, and we a correspondingly large majority in the North, the fact
that we are now to be represented as we were years ago, when the
population was different, is to us a very great disadvantage. We had in
the year 1855, according to law, a census, or enumeration of the
inhabitants, taken for the purpose of a new apportionment of
representation. We know what a fair apportionment of representation upon
that census would give us. We know that it could not, if fairly made,
fail to give the Republican party from six to ten more members of the
Legislature than they can probably get as the law now stands. It so
happened at the last session of the Legislature that our opponents,
holding the control of both branches of the Legislature, steadily refused
to give us such an apportionment as we were rightly entitled to have upon
the census already taken. The Legislature steadily refused to give us
such an apportionment as we were rightfully entitled to have upon the
census taken of the population of the State. The Legislature would pass
no bill upon that subject, except such as was at least as unfair to us as
the old one, and in which, in some instances, two men in the Democratic
regions were allowed to go as far toward sending a member to the
Legislature as three were in the Republican regions. Comparison was made
at the time as to representative and senatorial districts, which
completely demonstrated that such was the fact. Such a bill was passed
and tendered to the Republican Governor for his signature; but,
principally for the reasons I have stated, he withheld his approval, and
the bill fell without becoming a law.

Another disadvantage under which we labor is that there are one or two
Democratic Senators who will be members of the next Legislature, and will
vote for the election of Senator, who are holding over in districts in
which we could, on all reasonable calculation, elect men of our own, if
we only had the chance of an election. When we consider that there are
but twenty-five Senators in the Senate, taking two from the side where
they rightfully belong, and adding them to the other, is to us a
disadvantage not to be lightly regarded. Still, so it is; we have this to
contend with. Perhaps there is no ground of complaint on our part. In
attending to the many things involved in the last general election for
President, Governor, Auditor, Treasurer, Superintendent of Public
Instruction, Members of Congress, of the Legislature, County Officers,
and so on, we allowed these things to happen by want of sufficient
attention, and we have no cause to complain of our adversaries, so far as
this matter is concerned. But we have some cause to complain of the
refusal to give us a fair apportionment.

There is still another disadvantage under which we labor, and to which I
will ask your attention. It arises out of the relative positions of the
two persons who stand before the State as candidates for the Senate.
Senator Douglas is of world-wide renown. All the anxious politicians of
his party, or who have been of his party for years past, have been
looking upon him as certainly, at no distant day, to be the President of
the United States. They have seen in his round, jolly, fruitful face
post-offices, land-offices, marshalships, and cabinet appointments,
charge-ships and foreign missions bursting and sprouting out in wonderful
exuberance, ready to be laid hold of by their greedy hands. And as they
have been gazing upon this attractive picture so long, they cannot, in
the little distraction that has taken place in the party, bring
themselves to give up the charming hope; but with greedier anxiety they
rush about him, sustain him, and give him marches, triumphal entries, and
receptions beyond what even in the days of his highest prosperity they
could have brought about in his favor. On the contrary, nobody has ever
expected me to be President. In my poor, lean, lank face, nobody has ever
seen that any cabbages were sprouting out. These are disadvantages all,
taken together, that the Republicans labor under. We have to fight this
battle upon principle, and upon principle alone. I am, in a certain
sense, made the standard-bearer in behalf of the Republicans. I was made
so merely because there had to be some one so placed,--I being in nowise
preferable to any other one of twenty-five, perhaps a hundred, we have in
the Republican ranks. Then I say I wish it to be distinctly understood
and borne in mind that we have to fight this battle without many--perhaps
without any of the external aids which are brought to bear against us. So
I hope those with whom I am surrounded have principle enough to nerve
themselves for the task, and leave nothing undone that can be fairly done
to bring about the right result.

After Senator Douglas left Washington, as his movements were made known
by the public prints, he tarried a considerable time in the city of New
York; and it was heralded that, like another Napoleon, he was lying by
and framing the plan of his campaign. It was telegraphed to Washington
City, and published in the Union, that he was framing his plan for the
purpose of going to Illinois to pounce upon and annihilate the
treasonable and disunion speech which Lincoln had made here on the 16th
of June. Now, I do suppose that the Judge really spent some time in New
York maturing the plan of the campaign, as his friends heralded for him.
I have been able, by noting his movements since his arrival in Illinois,
to discover evidences confirmatory of that allegation. I think I have
been able to see what are the material points of that plan. I will, for a
little while, ask your attention to some of them. What I shall point out,
though not showing the whole plan, are, nevertheless, the main points, as
I suppose.

They are not very numerous. The first is popular sovereignty. The second
and third are attacks upon my speech made on the 16th of June. Out of
these three points--drawing within the range of popular sovereignty the
question of the Lecompton Constitution--he makes his principal assault.
Upon these his successive speeches are substantially one and the same. On
this matter of popular sovereignty I wish to be a little careful.
Auxiliary to these main points, to be sure, are their thunderings of
cannon, their marching and music, their fizzlegigs and fireworks; but I
will not waste time with them. They are but the little trappings of the
campaign.

Coming to the substance,--the first point, "popular sovereignty." It is
to be labeled upon the cars in which he travels; put upon the hacks he
rides in; to be flaunted upon the arches he passes under, and the banners
which wave over him. It is to be dished up in as many varieties as a
French cook can produce soups from potatoes. Now, as this is so great a
staple of the plan of the campaign, it is worth while to examine it
carefully; and if we examine only a very little, and do not allow
ourselves to be misled, we shall be able to see that the whole thing is
the most arrant Quixotism that was ever enacted before a community. What
is the matter of popular sovereignty? The first thing, in order to
understand it, is to get a good definition of what it is, and after that
to see how it is applied.

I suppose almost every one knows that, in this controversy, whatever has
been said has had reference to the question of negro slavery. We have not
been in a controversy about the right of the people to govern themselves
in the ordinary matters of domestic concern in the States and
Territories. Mr. Buchanan, in one of his late messages (I think when he
sent up the Lecompton Constitution) urged that the main point to which
the public attention had been directed was not in regard to the great
variety of small domestic matters, but was directed to the question of
negro slavery; and he asserts that if the people had had a fair chance to
vote on that question there was no reasonable ground of objection in
regard to minor questions. Now, while I think that the people had not had
given, or offered, them a fair chance upon that slavery question, still,
if there had been a fair submission to a vote upon that main question,
the President's proposition would have been true to the utmost. Hence,
when hereafter I speak of popular sovereignty, I wish to be understood as
applying what I say to the question of slavery only, not to other minor
domestic matters of a Territory or a State.

Does Judge Douglas, when he says that several of the past years of his
life have been devoted to the question of "popular sovereignty," and that
all the remainder of his life shall be devoted to it, does he mean to say
that he has been devoting his life to securing to the people of the
Territories the right to exclude slavery from the Territories? If he
means so to say he means to deceive; because he and every one knows that
the decision of the Supreme Court, which he approves and makes especial
ground of attack upon me for disapproving, forbids the people of a
Territory to exclude slavery. This covers the whole ground, from the
settlement of a Territory till it reaches the degree of maturity
entitling it to form a State Constitution. So far as all that ground is
concerned, the Judge is not sustaining popular sovereignty, but
absolutely opposing it. He sustains the decision which declares that the
popular will of the Territory has no constitutional power to exclude
slavery during their territorial existence. This being so, the period of
time from the first settlement of a Territory till it reaches the point
of forming a State Constitution is not the thing that the Judge has
fought for or is fighting for, but, on the contrary, he has fought for,
and is fighting for, the thing that annihilates and crushes out that same
popular sovereignty.

Well, so much being disposed of, what is left? Why, he is contending for
the right of the people, when they come to make a State Constitution, to
make it for themselves, and precisely as best suits themselves. I say
again, that is quixotic. I defy contradiction when I declare that the
Judge can find no one to oppose him on that proposition. I repeat, there
is nobody opposing that proposition on principle. Let me not be
misunderstood. I know that, with reference to the Lecompton Constitution,
I may be misunderstood; but when you understand me correctly, my
proposition will be true and accurate. Nobody is opposing, or has
opposed, the right of the people, when they form a constitution, to form
it for themselves. Mr. Buchanan and his friends have not done it; they,
too, as well as the Republicans and the Anti-Lecompton Democrats, have
not done it; but on the contrary, they together have insisted on the
right of the people to form a constitution for themselves. The difference
between the Buchanan men on the one hand, and the Douglas men and the
Republicans on the other, has not been on a question of principle, but on
a question of fact.

The dispute was upon the question of fact, whether the Lecompton
Constitution had been fairly formed by the people or not. Mr. Buchanan
and his friends have not contended for the contrary principle any more
than the Douglas men or the Republicans. They have insisted that whatever
of small irregularities existed in getting up the Lecompton Constitution
were such as happen in the settlement of all new Territories. The
question was, Was it a fair emanation of the people? It was a question of
fact, and not of principle. As to the principle, all were agreed. Judge
Douglas voted with the Republicans upon that matter of fact.

He and they, by their voices and votes, denied that it was a fair
emanation of the people. The Administration affirmed that it was. With
respect to the evidence bearing upon that question of fact, I readily
agree that Judge Douglas and the Republicans had the right on their side,
and that the Administration was wrong. But I state again that, as a
matter of principle, there is no dispute upon the right of a people in a
Territory, merging into a State, to form a constitution for themselves
without outside interference from any quarter. This being so, what is
Judge Douglas going to spend his life for? Is he going to spend his life
in maintaining a principle that nobody on earth opposes? Does he expect
to stand up in majestic dignity, and go through his apotheosis and become
a god in the maintaining of a principle which neither man nor mouse in
all God's creation is opposing? Now something in regard to the Lecompton
Constitution more specially; for I pass from this other question of
popular sovereignty as the most arrant humbug that has ever been
attempted on an intelligent community.

As to the Lecompton Constitution, I have already said that on the
question of fact, as to whether it was a fair emanation of the people or
not, Judge Douglas, with the Republicans and some Americans, had greatly
the argument against the Administration; and while I repeat this, I wish
to know what there is in the opposition of Judge Douglas to the Lecompton
Constitution that entitles him to be considered the only opponent to
it,--as being par excellence the very quintessence of that opposition. I
agree to the rightfulness of his opposition. He in the Senate and his
class of men there formed the number three and no more. In the House of
Representatives his class of men--the Anti-Lecompton Democrats--formed a
number of about twenty. It took one hundred and twenty to defeat the
measure, against one hundred and twelve. Of the votes of that one hundred
and twenty, Judge Douglas's friends furnished twenty, to add to which
there were six Americans and ninety-four Republicans. I do not say that I
am precisely accurate in their numbers, but I am sufficiently so for any
use I am making of it.

Why is it that twenty shall be entitled to all the credit of doing that
work, and the hundred none of it? Why, if, as Judge Douglas says, the
honor is to be divided and due credit is to be given to other parties,
why is just so much given as is consonant with the wishes, the interests,
and advancement of the twenty? My understanding is, when a common job is
done, or a common enterprise prosecuted, if I put in five dollars to your
one, I have a right to take out five dollars to your one. But he does not
so understand it. He declares the dividend of credit for defeating
Lecompton upon a basis which seems unprecedented and incomprehensible.

Let us see. Lecompton in the raw was defeated. It afterward took a sort
of cooked-up shape, and was passed in the English bill. It is said by the
Judge that the defeat was a good and proper thing. If it was a good
thing, why is he entitled to more credit than others for the performance
of that good act, unless there was something in the antecedents of the
Republicans that might induce every one to expect them to join in that
good work, and at the same time something leading them to doubt that he
would? Does he place his superior claim to credit on the ground that he
performed a good act which was never expected of him? He says I have a
proneness for quoting Scripture. If I should do so now, it occurs that
perhaps he places himself somewhat upon the ground of the parable of the
lost sheep which went astray upon the mountains, and when the owner of
the hundred sheep found the one that was lost, and threw it upon his
shoulders and came home rejoicing, it was said that there was more
rejoicing over the one sheep that was lost and had been found than over
the ninety and nine in the fold. The application is made by the Saviour
in this parable, thus: "Verily, I say unto you, there is more rejoicing
in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, than over ninety and nine just
persons that need no repentance."

And now, if the Judge claims the benefit of this parable, let him repent.
Let him not come up here and say: "I am the only just person; and you are
the ninety-nine sinners!" Repentance before forgiveness is a provision of
the Christian system, and on that condition alone will the Republicans
grant his forgiveness.

How will he prove that we have ever occupied a different position in
regard to the Lecompton Constitution or any principle in it? He says he
did not make his opposition on the ground as to whether it was a free or
slave constitution, and he would have you understand that the Republicans
made their opposition because it ultimately became a slave constitution.
To make proof in favor of himself on this point, he reminds us that he
opposed Lecompton before the vote was taken declaring whether the State
was to be free or slave. But he forgets to say that our Republican
Senator, Trumbull, made a speech against Lecompton even before he did.

Why did he oppose it? Partly, as he declares, because the members of the
convention who framed it were not fairly elected by the people; that the
people were not allowed to vote unless they had been registered; and that
the people of whole counties, some instances, were not registered. For
these reasons he declares the Constitution was not an emanation, in any
true sense, from the people. He also has an additional objection as to
the mode of submitting the Constitution back to the people. But bearing
on the question of whether the delegates were fairly elected, a speech of
his, made something more than twelve months ago, from this stand, becomes
important. It was made a little while before the election of the
delegates who made Lecompton. In that speech he declared there was every
reason to hope and believe the election would be fair; and if any one
failed to vote, it would be his own culpable fault.

I, a few days after, made a sort of answer to that speech. In that answer
I made, substantially, the very argument with which he combated his
Lecompton adversaries in the Senate last winter. I pointed to the facts
that the people could not vote without being registered, and that the
time for registering had gone by. I commented on it as wonderful that
Judge Douglas could be ignorant of these facts which every one else in
the nation so well knew.

I now pass from popular sovereignty and Lecompton. I may have occasion to
refer to one or both.

When he was preparing his plan of campaign, Napoleon-like, in New York,
as appears by two speeches I have heard him deliver since his arrival in
Illinois, he gave special attention to a speech of mine, delivered here
on the 16th of June last. He says that he carefully read that speech. He
told us that at Chicago a week ago last night and he repeated it at
Bloomington last night. Doubtless, he repeated it again to-day, though I
did not hear him. In the first two places--Chicago and Bloomington I
heard him; to-day I did not. He said he had carefully examined that
speech,--when, he did not say; but there is no reasonable doubt it was
when he was in New York preparing his plan of campaign. I am glad he did
read it carefully. He says it was evidently prepared with great care. I
freely admit it was prepared with care. I claim not to be more free from
errors than others,--perhaps scarcely so much; but I was very careful not
to put anything in that speech as a matter of fact, or make any
inferences, which did not appear to me to be true and fully warrantable.
If I had made any mistake, I was willing to be corrected; if I had drawn
any inference in regard to Judge Douglas or any one else which was not
warranted, I was fully prepared to modify it as soon as discovered. I
planted myself upon the truth and the truth only, so far as I knew it, or
could be brought to know it.