American colonies, that all men are created equal. Now, as an abstract principle, there is no doubt of the truth of that declaration; and it is desirable, in the original construction of society, and in organized societies, to keep it in view was a great fundamental principle. But, then, I apprehend that in no society that ever did exist, or ever shall be formed, was or can the equality asserted among the members of the human race, be practically enforced and carried out. There are portions, large portions, women, minors, insane, culprits, transient sojourners, that will always probably remain subject to the government of another portion of the community. "That declaration, whatever may be the extent of its import, was made by the delegations of the thirteen States. In most of them slavery existed, and had long existed, and was established by law. It was introduced and forced upon the colonies by the paramount law of England. Do you believe, that in making that declaration the States that concurred in it intended that it should be tortured into a virtual emancipation of all the slaves within their respective limits? Would Virginia and other Southern States have ever united in a declaration which was to be interpreted into an abolition of slavery among them? Did any one of the thirteen colonies entertain such a design or expectation? To impute such a secret and unavowed purpose, would be to charge a political fraud upon the noblest band of patriots that ever assembled in council-a fraud upon the Confederacy of the Revolution-a fraud upon the union of those States whose Constitution not only recognized the lawfulness of slavery, but permitted the importation of slaves from Africa until the year 1808." This is the entire quotation brought forward to prove that somebody previous to three years ago had said the negro was not included in the term "all men "" in the Declaration. How does it do so? In what way has it a tendency to prove that? Mr. Clay says it is true as an abstract principle that all men are created equal, but that we cannot practically apply it in all cases. He illustrates this by bringing forward the cases of females, minors, and insane persons, with whom it cannot be enforced; but he says it is true as an abstract principle in the organization of society as well as in organized society, and it should be kept in view as a fundamental principle. Let me read a few words more before I add some comments of my own. Mr. Clay says a little further on: "I desire no concealmer of my opinions in regard to the institution of slavery. I look upon it as a great evil, and deeply lament that we have derived it from the parental Government, and from our ancestors. But here they are, and the question is, how can they be best dealt with? If a state of nature existed, and we were about to lay the foundations of society, no man would be more strongly opposed than I should be, to incorporating the institution of slavery among its elements." Now, here in this same book-in this same speech-in this same extract brought forward to prove that Mr. Clay held that the negro was not included in the Declaration of Independence-no such statement on his part, but the declaration that it is a great fundamental truth, which should be constantly kept in view in the organization of society and in societies already organized. But if I say a word about it—if I attempt, as Mr. Clay said all good men ought to do, to keep it in view-if, in this "organized society," I ask to have the public eye turned upon it-if I ask in relation to the organization of new Territories, that the public eye should be turned upon itforthwith I am villified as you hear me today. What have I done, that I have not the license of Henry Clay's illustrious example here in doing? Have I done aught that I have not his authority for, while maintaining that in organizing new Territories and societies, this fundamental principle should be regarded, and in organized society holding it up to the public view and recognizing what he recognized as the great principle of free government? And when this new principle-this new proposition that no human being ever thought of three years ago—is brought forward, I combat it as having an evil tendency, if not an evil design. I combat it as having a tendency to dehumanize the negro-to take away from him the right of ever striving to be a man. I combat it as being one of the thousand things constantly done in these days to prepare the public mind to make property, and nothing but property, of the negro in all the States of this Union. But there is a point that I wish, before leaving this part of the discussion, to ask attention to. I have read and I repeat the words of Henry Clay: "I desire no concealment of my opinions in regard to the institution of slavery. I look upon it as a great evil, and deeply lament that we have derived it from the parental Government, and from our ancestors. I wish every slave in the United States was in the country of his ancestors. But here they are; the question is how they can best be dealt with? If a state of nature existed, and we were about to lay the foundations of society, no man would be more strongly opposed than I should be, to incorporate the institution of slavery among its elements." The principle upon which I have insisted in this canvass, is in relation to laying the foundations of new societies. I have ever sought to apply these principles to. the old States for the purpose of abolishing slavery in those States. It is nothing but a miserable perversion of what I have said, to assume that I have declared Missouri, or any other slave State, shall emancipate her slaves. I have proposed no such thing. But when Mr. Clay says that in laying the foundations of societies in our Territories where it does not exist, he would be opposed to the introduction of slavery as an element, I insist that we have his warrant his license for insisting upon the exclusion of that element which he declared in such strong and emphatic language was most hateful to him. Judge Douglas has again reverred to a Springfield speech in which I said "a house divided against itself cannot stand." The Judge has so often made the entire quotation from that speech that I can make it from memory. I used this language: "We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to the slavery agitation. Under the operation of this policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this Government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to fall-but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States-old as well as new, North as well as South." That extract and the sentiments expressed in it, have been extremely offensive to Judge Douglas. He has warred upon them as Satan wars upon the Bible. His perversions upon it are endless. Here now are my views upon it in brief. I said we were now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to the slavery agitation. Is it not so? When that Nebraska bill was brought forward four years ago last January, was it not for the "avowed object" of putting an end to the slavery agitation? We were to have no more agitation in Congress, it was all to be banished to the Territories. By the way, I will remark here that, as Judge Douglas is very fond of complimenting Mr. Crittenden in these days, Mr. Crittenden has said there was a falsehood in that whole business, for there was no slavery agitation at that time to allay. We were for a little while quiet on the troublesome thing, and that very allaying plaster of Judge Douglas's stirred it up again. But was it not understood or intimated with the "confident promise" of putting an end to the slavery agitation? Surely it was. In every speech you heard Judge Douglas make, until he got into this "imbroglio," as they call it, with the Administration about the Lecompton Constitution, every speech on that Nebraska bill was full of his felicitations that we were just at the end of the slavery agita tion. The last tip of the last joint of the old serpent's tail was just drawing out of view. But has it proved so? I have asserted that under that policy that agitation "has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented." When was there ever a greater agitation in Congress than last winter? When was it as great in the country as to-day? There was a collateral object in the introduction of that Nebraska policy which was to clothe the people of the Territories with the superior degree of self-government, beyond what they had ever had before. The first object and the main one of conferring upon the people a higher degree of "self-government," is a question of fact to be determined by you in answer to a single question. Have you ever heard or known of a people any where on earth who had as little to do, as, in the first instance of its use, the people of Kansas had with this same right of "self-government?" In its main policy and in its collateral object, it has been nothing but a living, creeping lie from the time of its introduction till to-day. I have intimated that I thought the agitation would not cease until a crisis should have been reached and passed. I have stated in what way I thought it would be reached and passed. I have said that it might go one way or the other. We might, by arresting the further spread of it, and placing it where the fathers originally placed it, put it where the public mind should rest in the belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. Thus the agitation may cease. It may be pushed forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South. I have said, and I repeat, my wish is that the further spread of it may be arrested, and that it may be placed where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction. I have expressed that as my wish. I entertain the opinion upon evidence sufficient to my mind, that the fathers of this Government placed that institution where the public mind did rest in the belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. Let me ask why they made provision that the source of slavery the African slave-trade-should be cut off at the end of twenty years? Why did 66 they make provision that in all the new the institution of slavery to come to an territory we owned at that time, slavery end. They expected and intended that it should be forever inhibited? Why stop its should be in the course of ultimate exspread in one direction and cut off its source in another, if they did not look to its being placed in the course of ultimate extinction? Again; the institution of slavery is only mentioned in the Constitution of the United States two or three times, and in neither of these cases does the word slavery" or "negro race" occur; but covert language is used each time, and for a purpose full of significance. What is the language in regard to the prohibition of the African slave-trade? It runs in about this way: "The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight." The next allusion in the Constitution to the question of slavery and the black race, is on the subject of the basis of representation, and there the language used is, "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxedthree-fifths of all other persons." It says "persons," not slaves, not negroes; but this "three-fifths" can be applied to no other class among us than the negroes. Lastly, in the provision for the reclamation of fugitive slaves, it is said: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." There again there is no mention of the word "negro" or of slavery. In all three of these places, being the only allusion to slavery in the instrument covert language is used. Language is used not suggesting that slavery existed or that the black race were among us. And I understand the cotemporaneous history of those times to be that covert language was used with a purpose, and that purpose was that in our Constitution, which it was hoped and is still hoped will endure forever-when it should be read by intelligent and patriotic men, after the institution of slavery had passed from among us-there should be nothing on the face of the great charter of liberty suggesting that such a thing as negro slavery had ever existed among us. This is part of the evidence that the fathers of the Government expected and intended tinction. And when I say that I desire to see the further spread of it arrested, I only say I desire to see that done which the fathers have first done. When I say I desire to see it placed where the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, I only say I desire to see it placed where they placed it. It is not true that our fathers, as Judge Douglas assumes, made this Government part slave and part free. Understand the sense in which he puts it. He assumes that slavery is a rightful thing within itself-was introduced by the framers of the constitution. The exact truth is, that they found the institution existing among us, and they left it as they found it. But in making the Government they left this institution with many clear marks of disapprobation upon it. They found slavery among them, and they left it among them because of the difficultythe absolute impossibility of its immediate removal. And when Judge Douglas asks me why we cannot let it remain part slave and part free, as the fathers of the Government made it, he asks a question based upon an assumption which is itself a falsehood; and I turn upon him and ask him the question, when the policy that the fathers of the Government had adopted in relation to this element among us was the best policy in the world-the only wise policy-the only policy that we can ever safely continue upon-that will ever give us peace, unless this dangerous element masters us all and becomes a national institution-I turn upon him and ask him why he could not leave it alone. I turn and ask him why he was driven to the necessity of introducing a new policy in regard to it. He has himself said he introduced a new policy. He said so in his speech on the 22d of March of the present year, 1858. I ask him why he could not let it remain where our fathers placed it. I ask, too, of Judge Douglas and his friends why we shall not again place this institution upon the basis on which the fathers left it. I ask you, when he infers that I am in favor of setting the free and slave States at war, when the institution was placed in that attitude by those who made the Constitution, did they make ony war? If we had no war out of it, when thus placed, wherein is the ground of belief that we shall have war out of it, if we return to that policy? Have we had any peace upon this matter springing from any other basis? I maintain that we have not. I have proposed nothing more than a return to the policy of the fathers. I confess, when I propose a certain measure of policy, it is not enough for me that I do not intend any thing evil in the | I say is an element of discord in this result, but it is incumbent on me to show Union? We have sometimes had peace, that it has not a tendency to that result. I but when was it? It was when the instihave met Judge Douglas in that point of tution of slavery remained quiet where it view. I have not only made the declara- was. We have had difficulty and turmoil tion that I do not mean to produce a con- whenever it has made a struggle to spread flict between the States, but I have tried itself where it was not. I ask, then, if exto show by fair reasoning, and I think I perience does not speak in thunder-tones, have shown to the minds of fair men, that telling us that the policy which has given I propose nothing but what has a most peace to the country heretofore, being repeaceful tendency. The quotation that I turned to, gives the greatest promise of happened to make in that Springfield peace again. You may say, and Judge speech, that "a house divided against it- Douglas has intimated the same thing, that self cannot stand," and which has proved all this difficulty in regard to the instituso offensive to the Judge, was part and tion of slavery is the mere agitation of parcel of the same thing. He tries to office-seekers and ambitious northern polishow that variety in the domestic institu- ticians. He thinks we want to get "his tions of the different States is necessary place," I suppose. I agree that there are and indispensable. I do not dispute it. I office-seekers amongst us. The Bible says have no controversy with Judge Douglas somewhere that we are desperately selfish. about that. I shall very readily agree I think we would have discovered that with him that it would be foolish for us to fact without the Bible. I do not claim insist upon having a cranberry law here, that I am any less so than the average of in Illinois, where we have no cran-men, but I do claim that I am not more berries, because they have a cranberry law selfish than Judge Douglas. in Indiana, where they have cranberries. I But is it true that all the difficulty and should insist that it would be exceedingly agitation we have in regard to this instituwrong in us to deny to Virginia the right tion of slavery springs from office-seeking to enact oyster laws, where they have oys--from the mere ambition of politicians? ters, because we want no such laws here. I Is that the truth? How many times have understand, I hope, quite as well as Judge we had danger from this question? Go Douglas or any body else, that the variety back to the day of the Missouri Comproin the soil and climate and face of the mise. Go back to the Nullification question, country, and consequent variety in the in- at the bottom of which lay this same slavery dustrial pursuits and productions of a question. Go back to the time of the country, require systems of law conform-Annexation of Texas. Go back to the ing to this variety in the natural features troubles that led to the Compromise of of the country. I understand quite as 1850. You will find that every time, with well as Judge Douglas, that if we here raise a barrel of flour more than we want, and the Louisianians raise a barrel of sugar more than they want, it is of mutual advantage to exchange. That produces commerce, brings us together, and makes us better friends. We like one another the more for it. And I understand as well as Judge Douglas, or any body else, that these mutual accommodations are the cements which bind together the different parts of this Union-that instead of being a thing to "divide the house"-figuratively expressing the Union -they tend to sustain it; they are the props of the house tending always to hold it up. But when I have admitted all this, I ask if there is any parallel between these things and this institution of slavery? I do not see that there is any parallel at all between them. Consider it. When have we had any difficulty or quarrel amongst ourselves about the cranberry laws of Indiana, or the oyster laws of Virginia, or the pine lumber laws of Maine, or the fact that Louisiana produces sugar, and Illinois flour? When have we had any quarrels over these things? When have we had perfect peace in regard to this thing which the single exception of the Nullification question, they sprang from an endeavor to spread this institution. There never was a party in the history of this country, and there probably never will be, of sufficient strength to disturb the general peace of the country. Parties themselves may be divided and quarrel on minor questions, yet it extends not beyond the parties themselves. But does not this question make a disturbance outside of political circles? Does it not enter into the churches and rend them asunder? What divided the great Methodist Church into two parts, North and South? What has raised this constant disturbance in every Presbyterian General Assembly that meets? What disturbed the Unitarian Church in this very city two years ago? What has jarred and shaken the great American Tract Society recently, not yet splitting it, but sure to divide it in the end? Is it not this same mighty, deep-seated power that somehow operates on the minds of men, exciting and stirring them up in every avenue of society-in politics, in religion, in literature, in morals, in all the manifold relations of life? Is this the work of politicians? Is that irresistible power which How many Democrats are there for fifty years has shaken the Government | right all his way and you have no part and agitated the people to be stilled and of it your way. If he goes in and makes subdued by pretending that it is an ex-it a slave Territory, and by consequence a ceedingly simple thing, and we ought not slave State, is it not time that those who deto talk about it? If you will get every-sire to have it a free State were on equal body else to stop talking about it, I assure ground? Let me suggest it in a different you I will quit before they have half done way. so. But where is the philosophy or states-about here ["A thousand"] who left slave manship which assumes that you can States and came into the free State of Illiquiet that disturbing element in our soci- nois to get rid of the institution of slavery? ety which has disturbed us for more than [Another voice-"A thousand and one.' half a century, which has been the only I reckon there are a thousand and one. serious danger that has threatened our in- will ask you, if the policy you are now adstitutions-I say, where is the philosophy vocating had prevailed when this country or the statesmanship based on the assump- was in a Territorial condition, where would tion that we are to quit talking about it, and you have gone to get rid of it? Where that the public mind is all at once to cease would you have found your free State or being agitated by it? Yet this is the Territory to go to? And when hereafter, policy here in the north that Douglas is for any cause, the people in this place shall advocating that we are to care nothing desire to find new homes, if they wish to about it! I ask you if it is not a false be rid of the institution, where will they philosophy? Is it not a false statesman- find the place to go to? ship that undertakes to build up a system of policy upon the basis of caring nothing about the very thing that every body does care the most about?-a thing which all experience has shown we care a very great deal about? which Hans and Baptiste and Patrick, and all other men from all the world, may find new homes and better their conditions in life. Now irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our new Territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home-may find some spot where they The Judge alludes very often in the can better their condition-where they can course of his remarks to the exclusive right settle upon new soil and better their conwhich the States have to decide the whole dition in life. I am in favor of this not thing for themselves. I agree with him merely (I must say it here as I have elsevery readily that the different States have where) for our own people who are born that right. He is but fighting a man of amongst us, but as an outlet for free white straw when he assumes that I am contend-people every where, the world over-in ing against the right of the States to do as they please about it. Our controversy with him is in regard to the new Territories. We agree that when States come in as States they have the right and the power I have stated upon former occasions, and to do as they please. We have no power I may as well state again, what I underas citizens of the free States or in our fed- stand to be the real issue in this controeral capacity as members of the Federal versy between Judge Douglas and myself. Union through the General Government, On the point of my wanting to make war to disturb slavery in the States where it between the free and the slave States, there exists. We profess constantly that we have has been no issue between us. So, too, no more inclination than belief in the when he assumes that I am in favor of inpower of the Government to disturb it; yet troducing a perfect social and political we are driven constantly to defend our- equality between the white and black selves from the assumption that we are races. These are false issues, upon which warring upon the rights of the States. Judge Douglas has tried to force the conWhat I insist upon is, that the new Terri- versy. There is no foundation in truth for tories shall be kept free from it while in the charge that I maintain either of these the Territorial condition. Judge Douglas propositions. The real issue in this conassumes that we have no interest in them troversy-the one pressing upon every -that we have no right whatever to inter- mind-is the sentiment on the part of one fere. I think we have some interest. I think class that looks upon the institution of that as white men we have. Do we not slavery as a wrong, and of another class wish for an outlet for our surplus popula- that does not look upon it as a wrong. The tion, if I may so express myself? Do we sentiment that contemplates the institution not feel an interest in getting at that out-of slavery in this country as a wrong is the let with such institutions as we would like to have prevail there? If you go to the Territory opposed to slavery and another man comes upon the same ground with his slave, upon the assumption that the things are equal, it turns out that he has the equal sentiment of the Republican party. It is the sentiment around which all their actions-all their arguments circle - from which all their propositions radiate. They look upon it as being a moral, social and political wrong; and while they contem |