Galesburg Debate

1

October 9, 1858.

The expectations of all parties were far surpassed in the results of Thursday. The crowd was immense notwithstanding the remarkably heavy of the day previous, and the sudden change during the night to a fiercely blowing, cutting wind which lasted during the whole day, ripping and tearing banners and sending signs pell mell all over town.

At early dawn our gunners announced the opening day and at an early hour the people began to pour in from every direction in wagons, on horseback and on foot.

At about ten o'clock the Burlington train arrived with Mr. Douglas and a large delegation of both Douglas and Lincoln men from the West.

Mr. Douglas was escorted to the Bancroft House, when a portion of the students of Lombard University presented him with a beautiful banner. A well prepared but somewhat fulsome address was made on its delivery by Geo. Elwell, who was followed by two young ladies, each with a symbolic address, the whole of which we could not catch.

Mr. Douglas responded with great felicity and his friends were well satisfied with their part of the performance. The banner was a "true circle" of silk, with a beautifully embroidered wreath within which was inscribed "Presented to Stephen A. Douglas, by the students of Lombard University." The speaker said the "circle" was emblematic of Mr. Douglas' course. So it was in a different sense from that meant by them.

Mr. Douglas was then escorted to the Bonney Houese, where a large multitude of all parties gathered to see and shake hands with him.

At 10 o'clock the Republicans with the military went to meet Mr. Lincoln, who was to come in with the Knoxville delegation. Hard by two they reached the place of rendezvous; when the delegation came along "mammoth" would not describe it. It was like one of Cobb's tales, of monstrous length and to be continued.

Lincoln was escorted to the house of Mr. Henry R. Sanderson, when a reception speech was made by T. G. Frost Esq., and the most beautiful banner of the day prepared by the ladies of Galesburg was presented by Miss Ada Hurd. It was an American Shield handsomely embroidered. Upon one side was the inscription, "Presented to the Hon. A. Lincoln by the Republican Ladies of Galesburg, Oct. 7, 1858. On the reverse was the Declaration of Independence upon a scroll, executed with a pen by a Mr. Clark of Peoria. Miss Hurd, who is of a queenly appearance, rode up at the head of a troop of equestrians and receiving the banner from the attendant presented it in a very neat and well spoken address. Mr. Lincoln's remarks in reply were very happy. It was the most beautiful ceremony of the day.

A banner was also presented to Mr. Lincoln from the Students of Lombard University.

By this time the delegations of both parties began to come in strong. Mercer Co. turned out a large delegation for Douglas as well a large one for Lincoln; but Wataga, Henderson and the adjoining villages bore off the palm for numbers, their delegation alone being over half a mile in length.

Monmouth sent up a rousing delegation for Lincoln. Somebody down there is great on crayon sketches, as the banners of this delegation were of the most amusing kind.

First--came one inscribed the "Monmouth Glee Club."

Second--A crayon sketch of Douglas and Toombs "modifying" in which Douglas with pen in hand is erasing the clause referring the Kansas Constitution back to the people.

Third--A representation of Jim Davidson with his head just stricken from his shoulders. In a scroll Jim learns that it is 184 miles to Monmouth.

Fourth--"Dug at Freeport," "my platform," in which Douglas stands "reversed" upon the Dred Scott platform, one leg of which is giving away beneath.

Fifth--"Coming form Egypt," in which Douglas roaring with rage, is being punched up with Lincoln's cane.

Other banners in the delegation we have not time to notice.

Of the notable banners in the procession, we observed the following:
A representation of the Capitol, and over the Senate room door Douglas' complaint, "He's got my place." Douglas is turning away while Lincoln is coming in.

A representation of a two donkey act, or Douglas attempting to ride Popular Sovereignty and Dred Scott. His straddle is remarkable but not equal to the task as both animals kicking up their heels send him sprawling.

"Knox College goes for Lincoln." stretched across the south front and north end of the College building.

"We will subdue you" Stephen A. Douglas.

"Ass Lincoln the Champion of Freedom." Upon this banner was also a portrait of ‘Long Abe.’

"Popular Sovereignty," in A

Three figures, one taking a chair from beneath Mr. Douglas and dropping him plump upon the floor, at which he exclaims, "Oh my place!" Mr. Lincoln standing by blandly remarks, "The people say it." The "place" Mr. Douglas referred to was doubtless the portion which came in contact with the floor.

Upon a four sided banner the following: "Macomb Lincoln Club." "We honor the man who brands the Traitor and Nullifier." "Small fisted Farmers, Mud Sills of Society, Greasy Mechanics, for A. Lincoln." "The dose of milk Abe gave Dug down in Egypt made him very sick."

A well painted banner with a terrible Lion on one side and ditto Dog on the other, with inscriptions "Douglas the dead Lion, Lincoln the Living Dog." If we are not mistaken this came upon the cars from the west with Douglas.

The best banner upon the ground was a painting of the locomotive "Freedom" with a long train of Free State cars rushing round a curve, with the warning, "Clear the track for Freedom", while sticking upon the track a little in advance of the train was Douglas' ox car laden with cotton. His negro driver had just taken the alarm and springing up in terror exclaims "Fore God, Massa, I bleves we's in danger!"

Another ludicrous banner had a representation upon one side of Douglas going down to Egypt, pail in hand, to bring Abe to his milk. On the other, "How he succeeded." Like Mr. Sniggs, in his first effort at milking a cow, he gave the customary command to "histe" the foot. Abe histed, and Douglas and his pail are seen "laying around loose."

Star spangled banners were numberless.

The principal banner on the Douglas side was a large blue one with an inscription in favor of Douglas and Popular Sovereignty. Lithographs of Douglas abounded.

Knox College, by the east end of which the stand was erected, was gaily decorated with flags and streamers. Immediately over the stand was one bearing the inscription, "Knox College for Lincoln."

At noon the people began to collect and for an hour before the appointed time more than ten thousand people stood waiting the arrival of the speakers, and in the meantime the crowd was addressed by Mr. Reed of the Aledo Record, in a spicy and humorous speech, so the Lincoln friends thought.

At 2 o'clock Lincoln and Douglas in two four horse carriages driven abreast, were escorted to the ground by the military and a large body of citizens on horse back and on foot.

Hon. James Knox, of Knoxville, acted as chairman, and as soon as order could be obtained he introduced Mr. Douglas who by the arrangement was to occupy one hour, then Mr. Lincoln an hour and a half and Mr. Douglas a half hour in conclusion.

We present the following sketch of their remarks, embodying the leading ideas, though not in every instance the precise language of the speakers.

Douglas' Introductory
Judge Douglas commenced by referring to the Compromise measures of 1850 and the Kansas and Nebraska bill of 1854, and to his support and advocacy of these two measures. The principle of the Nebraska bill was that the people of each Territory were to have the right to control their own affairs, subject only to such regulations as the Constitution imposed upon them. No man would doubt the fidelity and earnestness with which he had advocated the principles embodied in that bill.

In his opinion the attempt to force Kansas into the Union under the Lecompton Constitution was a gross violation of the principles of the Kansas and Nebraska bill of 1854. For that reason he led off in that fight, during the whole of which he appealed to his hearers if he had not carried the banner aloft, and never allowed it to trail in the dust until the victory was achieved. The Administration then devised the English bill, and offered pardon to all who had fought Lecompton if they would support it. He did not accept the pardon. He was in favor of sending the Lecompton Constitution back to see if it was the will of the people of Kansas.

The English bill provided that the Lecompton Constitution should be sent back to the people of Kansas, and if accepted by them they were to come into the Union with a population of 35,000 inhabitants; if rejected, they were to be punished by being kept out of the Union until they had three times that number.

He had then said that when Kansas had population enough for a slave State, she had enough for a free State. He never did and never would record a vote to make an odious distinction between a free and a slave State. We held the principle that they should all stand upon a footing of equality. Whenever we make such an odious distinction as that a territory might come in a slave state with only 45,000 inhabitants and free state with 93 or 100 thousand inhabitants we were throwing the whole weight of the federal government in favor of slavery; he could not sanction such a doctrine.

He believed now, and had always declared the principle that no territory should be admitted until it had the requisite Congressional ratio; but while he adopted that rule, he could not consent to exclude Kansas as a punishment for wanting to settle the slavery question as she pleased.

His opposition to the Lecompton constitution did not rest on its peculiar provisions relative to Slavery. He held then and now that if the people of Kansas wanted a slave state they had a right to make it so, and if a free state they had the same right. He held the doctrine that every state had the right to decide for itself what should be the character of its peculiar institutions.

He represented that administration Postmasters were making speeches against him and in favor of Lincoln because he could not sanction a great fraud upon the people of Kansas.

While the advocacy of the English bill is a test o f political orthodoxy here in Illinois, how is it in other States? In Indiana, the author of the bill, Mr. English, has been forced to abandon his own project and pledge himself for the admission of Kansas whenever she desires it.

In Ohio, all the members of Congress of both houses, who stood shoulder to shoulder in support of the English bill, now repudiate it and take the same ground that he did. So with Jones, of Pennsylvania.

Every democratic congressman in all the free States had taken the same ground which he proclaimed in the Senate; but it was made a test only with him. His political offense consisted in not pledging himself to keep Kansas out of the Union until she had a population of 93,000. He did not give a pledge because he did not intend to carry out that principle. Was he not right in resisting the Lecompton constitution and the English bill? He opposed the Lecompton constitution because it was not the will of the people of Kansas, and he denied the right of any power on earth to force a constitution upon an unwilling people.

There was a time when some could believe the Lecompton constitution was the will of the people of Kansas, but that time had passed by. Last August, at the polls, the people of Kansas condemned it by an overwhelming majority. He submitted the question, whether, if it had not been for him, that constitution would not have been crammed down their throats without their consent; and vet his efforts were used as a means of breaking him down, and putting another man in his place, in the Senate. An alliance was formed with the Federal officers to defeat him because he had done right. His political opponents would have no hope but from this alliance with federal officeholders, who were actuated by a spirit of revenge for his defeat of the Lecompton constitution. What do you think of a man who uses the right actions of another to defeat him?

The battle axe of proscription was raised against officeholders unless they voted against him. He could find an instance even in Galesburg where they were smitten down because they had supported him and the regular democratic ticket.

The Republicans think if this one chance slips from them, their hopes will be blasted. The Republican organization is unlike any others; all other parties have been National in character, and could avow their principles in all the States; such was the case with the Democratic party.

The Republican leaders make speeches which cannot be defended in any Southern State. What Republican can go into Kentucky and advocate his principles there? Republicans must leave their principles behind them when they cross the Ohio, or Mason's and Dixon's line. NO political creed is sound which cannot be proclaimed in every section of the Union wherever the Constitution prevails.

We find that not only the Republican party are unable to proclaim their principles in Southern States; but cannot give them the same sense in all parts of the same state.

Friend Lincoln finds it difficult to express his sentiments alike in all parts of this State. In the extreme north he is as radical as Giddiness, while in the south he is an Old Line Whig, a disciple of Henry Clay, and has nothing to do with negro citizenship and negro equality.

Lincoln has therefore defied me to prove that there is such a dissimilarity in his speeches. In his speech at Chicago, in July last, Lincoln said that if the Declaration of Independence when it spoke of all men being created equal, did not include the negro, let us take the statute book and tear it out. He (Lincoln) there took the ground that the Declaration included the black race as well as the white. [Cries of right, right. Good, good.] Lincoln men down in Coles and Tazewell don't think it right. You say good, and are going to vote for him on that ground, but I will show you what he said down in Egypt, where they don't hold that doctrine. In his speech at Charlestown Lincoln says:
"I will say then that I am not nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]--that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. I as much as any other man a in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

Yet here you find men hurrahing for Lincoln, when he discards the doctrine that there is a superior and inferior race. How can you reconcile these two positions? Lincoln is voted for in the south as a pro slavery man, and in the north as an abolitionist.

In Tazewell and Coles counties they don't have such a thing as a Republican meeting; they call it a Lincoln meeting; if called a Republican meeting Lincoln would not get any votes. Down in Egypt there is still more difference. In Monroe county, the "free Democracy" were requested to meet. Trumbull and John Baker would address the "free democracy" of Monroe county. He came to Springfield and there "all opposed to Democracy" were requested to meet.--Thus you see his creed cannot travel through half the counties in the State without growing lighter as it travels further south.

Why cannot political men proclaim the same sentiments all over the State? He would despise himself if he avowed one set of principles in one part of the State, and a other in another part. He would not conceal or modify his principles in order to get votes. If he did not represent our sentiments he ought not to be our Senator.

He said that the doctrine that the signers of the Declaration of Independence, when they declared that all men were created equal meant to include the negro, was a monstrous heresy. The signers of the Declaration never dreamed of the negro when they made that assertion; they referred only to men of European descent.

I see a gentleman shaking his head. Let me remind him that Jefferson held slaves.--Did he intend to say that he was violating a Divine law by so doing? Twelve out of the thirteen States represented in the Confederacy were slaveholding, and nearly every signer of the Declaration was a slaveholder; and yet no one of them emancipated their slaves, much less put them on an equality with himself, when he signed the Declaration.

Would the signers have declared the negro their equals, and yet held them in bondage? Would you charge them with such hypocrisy? I say that our government was framed by our fathers on the white basis, to be administered for the benefit of white men in all time to come.

While I hold that under our Constitution the negro is not a citizen, it ought not and does not follow that he should be a slave.--The negro should enjoy every right which he can enjoy consistently with the welfare of society. Humanity enjoins and Christianity requires that we should extend to every human being every privilege which he can consistently enjoy. What are the privileges which the negro shall enjoy, each state must decide for itself. Illinois has decided the question, as also Kentucky, New York and Virginia. The great principle of our government is that each state has a right to decide such questions for itself, and no other state has a right to interfere.

In the Compromise measures of 1850, Henry Clay asserted the same right for the territories, which existed in the States. But Lincoln cannot be made to understand how in a territory the people may do as they please under the Dred Scott decision.

In that decision Judge Taney says that the negro is property on the same basis as other property. Suppose two neighbors go into Kansas territory--one of them with one hundred slaves, another with a lot of merchandise, including liquors. The latter meets with the Maine liquor law, which forbids him to sell his liquors. Of what use can these species of property be to him under the influence of such unfriendly legislation. The slaveholder finds no regulations for the protection of his property in slaves. Of what avail can they be to him under such unfriendly legislation. He finds the neglect of slave regulations excludes him as positively as if the laws excluded him. If the people of a Territory don't want slaves, they will withhold all legislation in its favor. Such a man as Orr of South Carolina and other Southern Statesmen have expressed similar opinions. I hold that no power on earth can force the institution of slavery on an unwilling people.

Suppose that Lincoln had been a member of the Convention which formed the Constitution of the United States, and had said as he has in his late speeches, that a house divided against itself could not stand, that this government could not endure half slave and half free, that we must be either one thing or the other, what would have been the result. Twelve out of the thirteen States were slaveholding, consequently they would have outvoted the free States, and fastened slavery upon every portion of the American continent. If the southern states had intended to control the institutions of the north would they have neglected the opportunity? Are you prepared now to force your doctrines upon the south, on an unwilling people, or, are you willing to leave the government as your fathers framed it, an assemblage of free and slave States, leaving each State to manage its own affairs and mind its own business? In this way only can peace and harmony be maintained.

Lincoln's Reply
Mr. Lincoln said a large portion of Mr. Douglas' speech had previously been delivered and put in print. [Laughter.] Didn't mean that for a knit but the answer was also in print. An opportunity had therefore been afforded the public to read our views upon the topics the Judge has presented and I will not go over the ground. There are some points upon which it would be well to touch.

The Judge says negroes are not meant by the term "MEN" in the Declaration of Independence. Now I say that this is a slander upon the Framer of the Declaration. I do not say they believed them to be equal politically and socially, but that as men they had an equal right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." [Applause.]

He asks if it is possible to believe that Jefferson, while he held slaves, would be such a hypocrite as to write such a declaration if he meant to include negroes. I believe that the records of the world from the times of the Declaration until three years ago, may be searched in vain to find one single word conveying the idea that negroes were not included. I defy Judge Douglas to show that he ever said so in any speech he ever made before that time. Washington never made any such assertion. Jefferson never made any. Not a member of Congress nor any living man ever made such an assertion until the necessities of the Democratic party required them to invent such a declaration. Jefferson it is true held slaves, but he said in reference to slavery, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; and I will offer Judge Douglas the highest premium in my power if he will show that he has ever offered a sentiment akin to that of Jefferson. [Great laughter.]

The Judge says Republicans can't call their meetings Republican, all over the State; that in the north we call them Republican meetings, in Tazewell county we call them meetings of the friends of Lincoln and in Monroe meetings of the free Democracy. About that I remember the Judge spoke in that same old Tazewell county the next Saturday after I did and never even ventured to call his meeting Democratic! Now what do you think of yourself Judge? (turning to Douglas amid great laughter and cries of "Hit him again.")

In 1856 his party delighted to call themselves the g-r-e-a-t National Democratic party. Now if a call for a meeting of the National Democracy is issued, Douglas don't go--he says its all them hateful post-masters! (great laughter.)

The Judge speaks of a contrast between my different speeches. They have been before the public in print some time, and the people can judge for themselves of their consistency. The Judge assumes that I did not know they would be printed. I always supposed the Chicago speech would be printed, and so of the others.

The Judge says if we do not confess negroes are not our equals, and therefore slaves, that we must make wives of them. I have always maintained that there is an inequality of race, it has been in my speeches for year; but in the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," they are our equals. It is an abstract moral question. I have insisted that in new countries where slavery does not exist, there is no question but that of pure morality. I trust a reading community will read what I do say.

The Judge says his is a national party and ours is sectional, that the whole country has no interest in the maintenance of the Republican party; that no party can be based on right principles cannot be proclaimed everywhere. This is the first time I ever heard the doctrine announced that the right could be everywhere proclaimed. Could the Judge go to Russia and proclaim American doctrines in the presence of the kings and emperors? Is it a true test? By the way, I understand the people of Chicago on one occasion, would not permit Judge Douglas to preach a certain doctrine. I want to know if the Judge thought that a true test of its soundness.

But the Judge is all the time harping upon matters and never discussing the principles of the Republican party. We have a Republican platform put forth at Springfield. We have each of us made forty or fifty speeches already during this campaign, and five times we have met face to face, and during all that time he had not laid his finger upon a single principle laid down in our platform and proved it wrong, but he and his friends turn away from its discussion and say our principles are not correct because there are people who will not allow us to preach them. Is that the way to test their soundness?--By his rule of judging he is fast becoming sectional himself too. His speeches don't go as currently as formerly. He is claiming that the Free Democracy of the North sustains him, while the South opposes him. I see the day rapidly approaching when the pills he has crowded down Republican throats will be crowded down his own throat.

In regard to what he says of the Compromise of 1850 embodying the principles of the Nebraska bill I have not presented any views and will do so now.

There is nothing of the Nebraska bill in the Compromise of 1850. In which of the acts can it be found? In the acts for the admission of New Mexico and Utah it was provided that when admitted as States they should choose for themselves whether or not Slavery should be established, but nothing was said of slavery during their Territorial existence, and Clay declared that in his opinion the old Mexican laws would control that question. How does that establish the principle that during their territorial existence a people may choose slavery if they wish?

The organization of New Mexico and Utah did not establish a principle. They were part of a compromise. It was not the establishment of a regular policy, but an agreement that because other things in the compromise were allowed this should be also--it was granted because it was paid for.

The compromise included half a dozen bills. One for the admission of California, one for fixing the Texas boundary, one for the abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, &c., &c., all together, each measure receiving votes because other measures were to pass in connection, and none of them to be taken as models. Nor were they patterned after. A year afterwards, when Douglas resented territorial bills, he did not follow those bills. They were a system of compromise measures and not patterns, and if they were patterns the Nebraska bill is unlike them.

Judge D. says he is opposed to making an odious distinction between the free and slave States. That is just the difference between the Judge and the people in this vicinity.--You prefer liberty to slavery. Judge Douglas would eradicate all preference of freedom over slavery, and every sentence he utters discards the idea of wrong in slavery. All his arguments exclude the thought of wrong. All his speeches, his sentences and maxims show this. He tells you he "don't care if a wrong is ‘voted up?’" You cannot say that a man has a right to do wrong. Of two species of property in territories, if you admit that to hold one kind is wrong, you can't institute an equality between the right and wrong. This is the difference between Douglas and his friends and the Republicans.

I belong to the sect which considers slavery a moral, political and social evil, and desire the establishment of a policy which, while having due regard to the conditions of its existence among us, looks hopefully forward to the time when it shall cease forever.

Judge Douglas for the fifth time returns to the charge of a conspiracy between the National Democracy and the Republicans.--What evidence he has I know not as he does not favor us with any. I have said that I have no objection to the division in his party. It was all his work. He got it up. He took the preliminary steps and Buchanan and he have quarreled over the result. I have not tried to prevent the quarrel and as I said I am free to confess that I have no objection to the division, but I defy the Judge to show any proof of the conspiracy. When in 1856 the opposition in Illinois was divided between Fremont and Fillmore the Judge was glad of it, but there is no evidence of a conspiracy unless we make the Judge a witness.

It will be remembered that at Ottawa the Judge brought forth certain radical Abolition resolutions which he called the Republican platform. He said I had assisted in drawing up those resolutions and upon them this campaign was to be fought. I denied any knowledge of them, and it turned out that they never had been passed at Springfield at all by any party at any convention. The Judge gave it up at Freeport but declared he had been misled, that the resolutions had been furnished him by his friends Mr. Lanphier and Col. Harris, and promised as soon as he could go to Springfield he would investigate the matter. Well the Judge has been to Springfield but we have heard no report of the result of that investigation.

A fraud was perpetrated and the commission of it has been traced to three persons, and whether it could be narrowed to a less number is what the report will show. It is said the resolutions were published in the Springfield Register, but it is also true that it was a forgery there. The idea of a mistake is absurd. The article had part of the real proceedings and part not, showing that the author had the proceedings of both meetings before him. Lanphere was and is the editor of the Register, so there is but little room for his escape; but he had less interest in the object of the forgery than either of the other two. The object then was to beat Gates and elect Harris.

The fraud was successful at that time.--Douglas and Harris were both so elated that they have endeavored to put it to new uses, like the fisherman's wife. Her husband had been drowned and his body brought home full of eels. The sympathizing neighbors asked what they should do with him. "Well," said she, "I guess we'll take the eels out and set him again." (merriment.)

On the 9th of July, Douglas tried it on Trumbull in the U. S. Senate. On the 9th of August Harris tried it again, and on the 21st of August it was played as a high trump by this blessed trio. Now that it is discovered, there is no surprise, no indignation with Lanphere; all just as cosy now and just as active in the concoction of new schemes as ever, all which would be perfectly natural if all were guilty, and very unnatural if all were guilty, and very unnatural if any one was innocent.

Lanphere probably insists that the rule of honor among thieves does not require him to take all the blame, and hence the difficulty in the Judge reporting.

Now these are all honorable men. Douglas asks that his honor should be endorsed by sending him back to the Senate, without thinking that the unexplained fraud does away the credibility of his word.

Harris also asks endorsement of his honor by a re-election, without seeming to know that he and the Register are lacking in title to belief. But how did it get into the Register? Lanphere was then and is now editor and knows how it got there and by whom it was concocted. Can he be induced to tell, or can the Judge be induced to tell? It may be that the two, for whose benefit it was concocted are innocent; but while it remains unexplained, I wish to be understood when I say that Judge Douglas is making charges he has no evidence to sustain.

At Freeport I answered certain inquiries propounded to me at Ottawa by Judge Douglas. I in turn put a few interrogatories to him. Some of these he answered, in his way, but one of them he did not answer and I call his attention to it again today. It is this:--
"If the Supreme Court of the United States shall decree that States cannot exclude slavery from their limits, are you in favor of acquiescing in, adopting and following such decision as a rule of political action?"

To this the Judge made no answer but sneered at the idea of the court making any such decision, and sneered at me for propounding such an interrogatory.

The 2nd Sec. of the 6th Art. of the Constitution reads as follows:
"This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby; anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

The essence of the Dred Scott decision may be compressed into one point, viz: The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution; so made that it cannot be separated from the Constitution; is as durable as the Constitution; is a part of the Constitution.

Remember the article in the Constitution I have just read, and the argument stands thus:
The right of property in slaves is guaranteed by the Constitution.

Nothing in the laws of any State can annul any right guaranteed by the Constitution.

Therefor, nothing in the Constitution of the laws of any State can annul the right to hold property in slaves.

Assuming the premises to be true, the conclusion must follow; but I deny the premise. It is not true in fact. The right of property in slaves in not distinctly affirmed in the Constitution. The Supreme Court cannot find it there. Grant the premise and Douglas's conclusion follows, that no State can destroy the right of property in slaves. This question, then, which I have propounded to Judge Douglas requires something more than a sneer to answer.

The Dred Scott decision would never have been made had not the Democratic party been sustained by the elections; and the new Dred Scott decision that States cannot annul the right of property in slaves, will not be made unless the party shall be sustained in the election again. If sustained, the decision will surely be made. Judge Douglas is actively preparing the public mind for that decision. Jefferson said that wherever the people gave up their rights to the Supreme Courts their liberties were gone.

Judge Douglas was an active instrument in breaking up a decision of the Supreme Court in Illinois. It was in that way and no other by which he acquired his title of Judge.

Now he says that all who stand by the decisions of the Supreme Court are friends of the Constitution, and those who do not are enemies of the Constitution, and thus commits himself to the next decision, right or wrong. He will not argue the question but he has great power to make a man believe a thing is so because he says it, and he is most powerfully preparing the public mind to take that decision when it comes. He is doing it in these maxims and expressions, such as, "He don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted down." He is in fact preparing the public mind for the declaration that "Slavery in National!" I do not take charge that he means to do this, but that he takes the most ingenious method by which it can be done. He is a fit instrument, best calculated for it.

When Mr. Clay was answering the objections to the Colonization Society, that it ultimately emancipated the slaves, he said:
"Those who would repress all tendencies toward liberty, and ultimate emancipation, must do more than put down the benevolent efforts of this Society. They must go back to the era of our liberty and independence, and muzzle the cannon that thunders its annual joyous return. They must revive the slave trade with all its train of atrocities, they must blow out the moral lights around us, and extinguish that greatest torch of all, which America presents to a benighted world, pointing the way to their rights, their liberties and their happiness. And when they have achieved all these purposes, their work will yet be incomplete. They must penetrate the human soul, and eradicate the light of reason and the love of liberty. The, and not till then, when universal darkness and despair prevail, can you perpetrate slavery and repress all sympathies, and all humans and benevolent efforts among freemen, in behalf of the unhappy portion of our race doomed to bondage."

Douglas is blowing out the moral lights around us when he says any man wanting slaves can have them under the constitution.

Among the interrogatories propounded to me, by Judge Douglas, at Freeport, was the following:
Are you opposed to the acquisition of further territory unless slavery is prohibited therein?

I answered this as follows:
I am not generally opposed to honest acquisition of territory; and, in any given case, I would or would not oppose such acquisition, accordingly as I might think such acquisition would or would not agitate the slavery question among ourselves.

I reposed a correlative viz., are you in favor of the acquisition of territory regardless of how it might affect the question of slavery?

The substance of the answer was, the country must continue to expand. It is absurd to attempt to restrain it. You might as well hoop a boy twelve years old and expect him to grow to man's size without bursting his hoop. He would leave it to the people of a territory. [Right, said a number of voices.] Maybe it is, let us consider it awhile. According to this, Judge Douglas is in favor of the acquisition of territory as fast as the institution of slavery needs it, and would leave the question of slavery to be decided by the acquired territory.

If Judge Douglas succeeds, the next thing will be to grab Mexico and the Southern Islands.

But the Judge has a bloody horror of Mongrels. Only one out of seven or eight of the Mexicans are white, and would the Judge allow these Mongrels, this inferior race, to settle the question for themselves?

This power of acquiring territory is confided to the President and Senate. When we acquired territory of Mexico the House insisted upon it that Slavery should be excluded. But the President and Senate (Just here the delegation via the Peoria & Oquawka road, consisting of twenty-two car loads, marched into the grounds with music and we lost the sentence.)

Mr. Douglas is in favor of acquiring territory as fast as needed. Filibustering thinks it always needed. That is a thing easy to say but impossible to disprove.

This slavery question is the only one that has ever made us fear for the safety of our Union and the liberties of our country. In view of this fact the acquisition of new territory is a serious question; whether it would add to the only hanger which has ever threatened the perpetuity of our Union is for us to consider.

Douglas' Rejoinder
Judge Douglas commenced by saying that the highest compliment which could be paid him, would be entire silence. He wished to be heard rather than applauded. One great complaint of Lincoln was that he had said the same thing before. He wished he could say the same of Lincoln's speech. My great complaint was that I cannot get him to say the same thing twice; I cannot hold him to a common standard; he has one set of principles north and another south-one set for Galesburg and another for Charlestown,--one for Chicago, and another for Jonesboro,--one set for each locality. His speech of today if it had been made in Coles county instead of old Know, would have settled the question in my favor.

Lincoln here reaffirms the doctrine of negro equality, and asserts that the negro was intended in the declaration that all men are created equal. If so, why does he say at Charleston that the negro belonged to an inferior race and that he is in favor of keeping him in an inferior condition?

At Charleston Lincoln said that the negro question was a question only of degree and not of right. He says today that it involves a great wrong. Is he right here at Charleston; I desire him to declare the same doctrine at the North as at the South.

In reply to Lincoln's remarks with reference to Russia, Douglas said that Russia was not under the American Constitution. The slave-holding States are under the same Constitution with ourselves; hence a man's principles, in order to be in harmony with the Constitution must be the same in the north as in the south. When Lincoln went to Congress, he took a solemn oath to support the Constitution of the United States. Was it the Constitution as he understands it in Galesburg, or the Constitution as he understands it in Charleston?

Mr. Lincoln has devoted considerable time to a series of resolutions said by me at Ottawa to have been passed at a Republican Convention in Springfield of which Lincoln was a member. He has dared to talk about fraud and forgery--has charged upon me and others a conspiracy to perpetrate a forgery in this matter. Lincoln does not deny that the said resolutions were passed at Conventions held in a majority of the counties of this State-and were declared to be the platform of the Republican party by Conventions held in many of the counties composing the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Congressional districts of the State; he don't deny their truthfulness, but objects to the spot at which they were passed-to the place instead of the thing itself; the same as he objected to the Mexican war because of the place at which it commenced.

He said that at the first encounter after the Ottawa debate, he had led off in an explanation of the matter; he did not wait to be called upon for such an explanation; but explained the mistake and how it happened frankly, as an honest man would.

Immediately after his attention had been called to it he had written to Maj. Harris, asking for an explanation of the matter. He had read them from a newspaper published at Springfield on the 5th of October, 1854, and in this way had innocently been led in an error. The resolutions had been published in the State Register as the resolutions passed at the Springfield convention, and he took it for granted that the newspaper was correct.

He did not doubt that every honest man would abhor Lincoln's insinuations that he was guilty of fraud, forgery and conspiracy in connection with this matter; Mr. Lincoln seemed determined to push him to the point of personal difficulty. He had commenced the encounter with Lincoln by treating him with great courtesy; he scorned his insinuations of fraud because the editor of a newspaper had made a mistake.

Lincoln did not deny these resolutions at Ottawa, but said that he went away to Tazewell court, and was absent when the resolutions were passed; he knew that if there was a mistake, I had nothing to do with it.

Republicans go against the admission of more slave States, even if the people want them. Lovejoy stands pledged against the admission of more slave States. Farnsworth is pledged against the admission of more slave States. Washburne is pledged against the admission of more slave States. I am informed that the Republican candidate in this district is also pledged against the admission of more slave States; yet Lincoln says that his conscience will not let him vote against the admission of slave States, if the people of a Territory desire it. You are one way and he another, and yet you profess to be governed by principle. You and Mr. Lincoln present the case of a house divided against itself, and it cannot stand. I hold that the people have a right to decide the slavery question for themselves, and whether slavery is voted up or down, the people of Kansas have a right to do as they please. Whenever I announce these abolition doctrines of the admission of no more slave states, you all claim them to be right, not knowing that your candidate is pledged the other way.

It is claimed that the Dred Scott decision carries slavery into the States; but the decision itself says the contrary. The Washington Union advanced such an opinion. I was the first man that read the article and pronounced it revolutionary. The Union has been following me ever since.

Senator Toombs has said that there was not a Southern statesman who held such a doctrine; and it cannot be found in the decision of the Supreme Court.

Judge Douglas in closing reiterated his former speeches upon the evil consequences of a disrespect for the decisions of the Supreme Court; said that the indulgence of such a sentiment would convert our government into a mob instead of a government of law; that Lincoln wanted to take an appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court to this meeting; said that Lincoln hoped to excite a prejudice against the decision of the Supreme Court and ride on the strength of that prejudice.

Judge D. cited Gen. Jackson's position in regard to the United States Bank, and the decision of the Supreme Court, and said that Lincoln misunderstood Gen. Jackson's position; that Jackson respected the decision of the Court; which was, that the Bank was necessary as a fiscal agent of the government, it was constitutional. Things constitutional were not always expedient.

The Constitution has made the Supreme Court, a tribunal of last resort. Lincoln says that I am bound by it, but he is not. When the Supreme Court has made a decision, is it not equally binding upon all? I stand by the laws of the land, by the decision of the Supreme Court and any person who resists that must resort to mob violence to overturn a government of law.