hold gods. If you would make men wiser | ger and death. It is a life of toil and adand better, relieve the almshouse, close the venture, spent upon one continued battledoors of the penitentiary, and break in pieces the gallows, purify the influences of the domestic fireside. For that is the school in which human character is formed, and there its destiny is shaped. There the soul receives its first impress, and man his first lesson, and they go with him for weal or woe through life. For purifying the sentiments, elevating the thoughts, and developing the noblest impulses of man's nature, the influences of a moral fireside and agricultural life are the noblest and

in which I announced it to be my purpose | people of Illinois. I hold that when the to appeal to the people of Illinois to sus-time arrives that I cannot proclaim my tain the course I had pursued in Congress. In that speech I joined issue with Mr. Lincoln on the points which he had presented. Thus there was an issue clear and distinct made up between us on these two propositions laid down in the speech of Mr. Lincoln at Springfield, and controverted by me in my reply to him at Chicago. On the next day, the 11th of July, Mr. Lincoln replied to me at Chicago, explaining at some length, and reaffirming the positions which he had taken in his Springfield speech. In that Chicago speech he even went further than he had before, and uttered sentiments in regard to the negro being on an equality with the white man. He adopted in support of this position the argument which Lovejoy and Codding, and other Abolition lecturers had made familiar in the northern and central portions of the State, to wit: that the Declaration of Independence having declared all men free and equal, by Divine law, also that negro equality was an inalienable right, of which they could not be deprived. He insisted, in that speech, that the Declaration of Independence included the negro in the clause, asserting that all men were created equal, and went so far as to say that if one man was allowed to take the position, that it did not include the negro, others might take the position that it did not include other men. He said that all these distinctions between this man and that man, this race and the other race, must be discarded, and we must all stand by the Declaration of Independence, declaring that all men were created equal.

political creed in the same terms not only in the northern but the southern part of Illinois, not only in the Northern but the Southern States, and wherever the American flag waves over American soil, that then there must be something wrong in that creed. So long as we live under a common Constitution, so long as we live in a confederacy of sovereign and equal States, joined together as one for certain purposes, that any political creed is radically wrong which cannot be proclaimed in every State, and every section of that Union, alike. I took up Mr. Lincoln's three propositions in my several speeches, analyzed them, and pointed out what I believed to be the radical errors contained in them. First, in regard to his doctrine that this Government was in violation of the law of God, which says that a house divided against itself cannot stand, I repudiated it as a slander upon the immortal framers of our Constitution. I then said, I have often repeated, and now again assert, that in my opinion our Government can endure forever, divided into free and slave States as our fathers made it, each State having the right to prohibit, abolish or sustain slavery, just as it pleases. This Government was made upon the great basis of the sovereignty of the States, the right of each State to regulate its own domestic institutions to suit itself, and that right was conferred with the understanding and expectation that inasmuch as each locality had separate interests, each locality must have different and distinct local and domestic institutions, correspondThe issue thus being made up between ing to its wants and interests. Our fathers Mr. Lincoln and myself on three points, we knew when they made the Government, went before the people of the State. Dur- that the laws and institutions which were ing the following seven weeks, between the well adapted to the green mountains of Chicago speeches and our first meeting at Vermont, were unsuited to the rice plantaOttawa, he and I addressed large assem- tions of South Carolina. They knew then, blages of the people in many of the central as well as we know now, that the laws and counties. In my speeches I confined my- institutions which would be well adapted to self closely to those three positions which the beautiful prairies of Illinois would not he had taken, controverting his proposition be suited to the mining regions of Calithat this Union could not exist as our fa-fornia. They knew that in a Republic as thers made it, divided into free and Slave States, controverting his proposition of a crusade against the Supreme Court because of the Dred Scott decision, and controverting his proposition that the Declaration of Independence included and meant the negroes as well as the white men when it declared all men to be created equal. I supposed at that time that these propositions constituted a distinct issue between us, and that the opposite positions we had taken upon them we would be willing to be held to in every part of the State. I never intended to waver one hair's breadth from that issue either in the north or the south, or wherever I should address the

broad as this, having such a variety of soil, climate and interest, there must ne cessarily be a corresponding variety of local laws-the policy and institutions of each State adapted to its condition and wants. For this reason this Union was established on the right of each State to do as it pleased on the question of slavery, and every other question; and the various States were not allowed to complain of, much less interfere with the policy, of their neighbors.

Suppose the doctrine advocated by Mr. Lincoln and the Abolitionists of this day had prevailed when the Constitution was made, what would have been the result?

After having pressed these arguments home on Mr. Lincoln for seven weeks, publishing a number of my speeches, we met at Ottawa in joint discussion, and he then began to crawfish a little, and let himself down. I there propounded certain questions to him. Amongst others, I asked him whether he would vote for the admission of any more slave States in the event the people wanted them. He would not answer. I then told him that if he did not answer the question there I would renew it at Freeport, and would then trot him down into Egypt and again put it to him. Well, at Freeport, knowing that the next joint discussion took place in Egypt, and being in dread of it, he did answer my question in regard to no more slave States in a mode which he hoped would be satisfactory to me, and accomplish the object he had in view. I will show you what his answer was. After saying that he was not pledged to the Republican doctrine of "no more slave States," he declared:

"I state to you freely, frankly, that I should be exceedingly sorry to ever be put in the position of having to pass upon that question. I should be exceedingly glad to know that there or would be another slave State admitted into this Union."

Imagine for a moment that Mr. Lincoln | a war against the Southern States and had been a member of the Convention that their institutions until you force them to framed the Constitution of the United abolish slavery everywhere. States, and that when its members were about to sign that wonderful document, he had arisen in that Convention as he did at Springfield this summer, and addressing himself to the President, had said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand; this Government, divided into free and slave States, cannot endure, they must all be free or all be slave, they must all be one thing or all be the other, otherwise, it is a violation of the law of God, and cannot continue to exist;"-suppose Mr. Lincoln had convinced that body of sages that that doctrine was sound, what would have been the result? Remember that the Union was then composed of thirteen States, twelve of which were slaveholding and one free. Do you think that the one free State would have outvoted the twelve slaveholding States, and thus have secured the abolition of slavery? On the other hand, would not the twelve slave-holding States have outvoted the one free State, and thus have fastened slavery, by a Constitutional provision, on every foot of the American Republic forever? You see that if this Abolition doctrine of Mr. Lincoln had prevailed when the Government was made, it would have established slavery as a permanent institution, in all the States, whether they wanted it or not, and the question for us to determine in Illinois now as one of the free States is, whether or not we are willing, having become the majority section, to enforce a doctrine on "But I must add in regard to this, that if the minority, which we would have re-slavery shall be kept out of the Territory sisted with our hearts' blood had it been during the territorial existence of any one attempted on us when we were in a mi- given Territory, and then the people should, nority. How has the South lost her power having a fair chance and a clear field when as the majority section in this Union, and they come to adopt a Constitution, if they how have the free States gained it, except should do the extraordinary thing of adoptunder the operation of that principle which ing a slave Constitution, uninfluenced by declares the right of the people of each the actual presence of the institution State and each Territory to form and among them, I see no alternative, if we regulate their domestic institutions in their own the country, but we must admit it into own way. It was under that principle the Union." that slavery was abolished in New Hamp- That answer Mr. Lincoln supposed would shire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New satisfy the old line Whigs, composed of York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania; it Kentuckians and Virginians down in the was under that principle that one half of southern part of the State. Now what does the slaveholding States became free; it it amount to? I desired to know whether was under that principle that the number he would vote to allow Kansas to come of free States increased until from being into the Union with slavery or not, as her one out of twelve States, we have grown to people desired. He would not answer; be the majority of States of the whole but in a roundabout way said that if slaUnion, with the power to control the very should be kept out of a Territory House of Representatives and Senate, and during the whole of its territorial existence, the power, consequently, to elect a Presi- and then the people, when they adopted a dent by Northern votes without the aid of State Constitution, asked admission as a a Southern State. Having obtained this slave State, he supposed he would have to power under the operation of that great let the State come in. The case I put to principle, are you now prepared to aban- him was an entirely different one. I dedon the principle and declare that merely sired to know whether he would vote to because we have the power you will wagel admit a State if Congress had not prohib

Here permit me to remark, that I do not think the people will ever force him into a position against his will. He went on to say:

ple, and accordingly, in August last, the question of admission under it was submitted to a popular vote, the citizens rejected it by nearly ten to one, thus show ing conclusively, that I was right when I said that the Lecompton Constitution was not the act and the deed of the people of Kansas, and did not embody their will.

ited slavery in it during its territorial | in every speech I have made in Illinois, existence, as Congress never pretend- that I fought the Lecompton Constitution ed to do under Clay's Compromise mea- to its death, not because of the slavery sures of 1850. He would not answer, clause in it, but because it was not the act and I have not yet been able to get an an- and deed of the people of Kansas. I said swer from him. I have asked him whe- then in Congress, and I say now, that if ther he would vote to admit Nebraska the people of Kansas want a slave State, if her people asked to come in as a State they have a right to have it. If they with a Constitution recognizing slavery, wanted the Lecompton Constitution, they and he refused to answer. I have put the had a right to have it. I was opposed to question to him with reference to New that Constitution because I did not believe Mexico, and he has not uttered a word in that it was the act and deed of the people, answer. I have enumerated the Territories, but on the contrary, the act of a small, one after another, putting the same ques-pitiful minority acting in the name of the tion to him with reference to each, and he majority. When at last it was determined has not said, ard will not say, whether, if to send that Constitution back to the peoelected to Congress, he will vote to admit any Territory now in existence with such a Constitution as her people may adopt. He invents a case which does not exist, and cannot exist under this Government, and answers it; but he will not answer the question I put to him in connection with any of the Territories now in existence. The contract we entered into with Texas when she entered the Union obliges us to I hold that there is no power on earth, allow four States to be formed out of the under our system of Government, which old State, and admitted with or without has the right to force a Constitution upon slavery as the respective inhabitants of an unwilling people. Suppose that there each may determine. I have asked Mr. had been a majority of ten to one in favor Lincoln three times in our joint discussions of slavery in Kansas, and suppose there whether he would vote to redeem that had been an Abolition President, and an pledge, and he has never yet answered. Abolition Administration, and by some He is as silent as the grave on the subject. means the Abolitionists succeeded in forHe would rather answer as to a state of cing an Abolition Constitution on those the case which will never arise than com-slave-holding people, would the people of mit himself by telling what, be would do the South have submitted to that act for in a case which would come up for his ac-one instant? Well, if you of the South tion soon after his election to Congress. would not have submitted to it a day, how Why can he not say whether he is willing can you, as fair, honorable and honest to allow the people of each State to have men, insist on putting a slave Constitution slavery or not as they please, and to come on a people who desire a free State? Your into the Union when they have the requi-safety and ours depend upon both of us site population as a slave or a free State as they decide? I have no trouble in answering the questions. I have said every where, and now repeat it to you, that if the people of Kansas want a slave State they have a right, under the Constitution of the United States, to form such a State, and I will let them come into the Union with slavery or without, as they determine. If the people of any other Territory desire slavery, let them have it. If they do not want it, let them prohibit it. It is their business, not mine. It is none of our business in Illinois whether Kansas is a free State or a slave State. It is none of your business in Missouri whether Kansas shall adopt slavery or reject it. It is the business of her people and none of yours. The people of Kansas have as much right to decide that question for themselves as you have in Missouri to decide it for yourselves, or we in Illinois to decide it for our selves.

And here I may repeat what I have said

acting in good faith, and living up to that great principle which asserts the right of every people to form and regulate their domestic institutions to suit themselves, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.

Most of the men who denounced my course on the Lecompton question, objected to it not because I was not right, but because they thought it expedient at that time, for the sake of keeping the party together, to do wrong. I never knew the Democratic party to violate any one of its principles out of policy or expediency, that it did not pay the debt with sorrow. There is no safety or success for our party unless we always do right, and trust the consequences to God and the people. I chose not to depart from principle for the sake of expediency in the Lecompton question, and I never intend to do it on that or any other question.

But I am told that I would have been all right if I had only voted for the Eng

lish bill after Lecompton was killed. You know a general pardon was granted to all political offenders on the Lecompton question, provided they would only vote for the English bill. I did not accept the benefits of that pardon, for the reason that I had been right in the course I had pursued, and hence did not require any forgiveness. Let us see how the result has been worked out. English brought in his bill referring the Lecompton Constitution back to the people, with the provision that if it was rejected Kansas should be kept out of the Union until she had the full ratio of population required for a member of Congress, thus in effect declaring that if the people of Kansas would only consent to come into the Union under the Lecompton Constitution, and have a slave State when they did not want it, they should be admitted with a population of 35,000, but that if they were so obstinate as to insist upon having just such a Constitution as they thought best, and to desire admission as a free State, then they should be kept out until they had 93,420 inhabitants. I then said, and I now repeat to you, that whenever Kansas has people enough for a slave state she has people enough for a free State. I was and am willing to adopt the rule that no State shall ever come into the Union until she has the full ratio of population for a member of Congress, provided that rule is made uniform. I made that proposition in the Senate last winter, but a majority of the Senators would not agree to it; and I then said to them if you will not adopt the general rule I will not onsent to make an exception of Kansas.

We are informed that every Democratic candidate for Congress in all the States where elections have recently been held, was pledged against the English bill, with perhaps one or two exceptions. Now, if I had only done as these anti-Lecompton men who voted for the English bill in Congress, pledging themselves to refuse to admit Kansas if she refused to become a slave State until she had a population of 93,420, and then return to their people, forfeited their pledge, and made a new pledge to admit Kansas at any time she арplied, without regard to population, I would have had no trouble. You saw the whole power and patronage of the Federal Government wielded in Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania to re-elect anti-Lecompton men to Congress who voted against Lecompton, then voted for the English bill, and then denounced the English bill, and pledged themselves to their people to disregard it. My sin consists in not having given a pledge, and then in not having afterward forfeited it. For that reason, in this State, every postmaster, every route agent, every collector of the ports, and every federal office-holder, forfeits his head the moment he expresses a preference for the Democratic candidates against Lincoln and his Abolition associates. A Democratic Administration which we helped to bring into power, deems it consistent with its fidelity to principle and its regard to duty, to wield its power in this State in behalf of the Republican Abolition candidates in every county and every Congressional District against the Democratic party. All I have to say in reference to I hold that it is a violation of the funda- the matter is, that if that Administration mental principles of this Government to have not regard enough for principle, if throw the weight of federal power into the they are not sufficiently attached to the scale, either in favor of the free or the creed of the Democratic party to bury for. slave States. Equality among all the ever their personal hostilities in order to States of this Union is a fundamental prin- succeed in carrying out our glorious prin ciple in our political system. We have no ciples, I have. I have no personal diffi more right to throw the weight of the culty with Mr. Buchanan or his cabinet. Federal Government into the scale in favor He chose to make certain recommendations of the slaveholding than the free States, to Congress, as he had a right to do, on the and last of all should our friends in the Lecompton question. I could not vote in South consent for a moment that Congress favor of them. I had as much right to should withhold its powers either way judge for myself how I should vote as he when they know that there is a majority had how he should recommend. He unagainst them in both Houses of Congress. dertook to say to me, if you do not vote as Fellow-citizens, how have the supporters I tell you, I will take off the heads of your of the English bill stood up to their friends. I replied to him, "You did not pledges not to admit Kansas until she ob-elect me, I represent Illinois and I am actained a population of 93,420 in the event countable to Illinois, as my constituency, she rejected the Lecompton Constitution? and to God, but not to the President or to How? The newspapers inform us that any other power on earth." English himself, whilst conducting his canvass for re-election, and in order to secure it, pledged himself to his constituents that if returned he would disregard his own bill and vote to admit Kansas into the Union with such population as she might have when she made application.

And now this warfare is made on me because I would not surrender my convictions of duty, because I would not abandon my constituency, and receive the orders of the executive authorities how I should vote in the Senate of the United States. I hold that an attempt to control