AUTHORIZED EDITION.
L I F E
A. DOUGLAS'
t. x /1e ho 
TO WHICH ARE ADDED
HIS SPEECHES AND REPORTS
BY H.i M.<F LINT.
PHILADELPHIA:
JOHN E. POTTER AND COMPANY,
617 SANSOM STREET.
or
STEPHEN
.so 
Enterid according to Aet of Congress, in the year 1863, by,
J. EDWIN POTTER, 
In tat Clerk's Office oi the District Court of the United etates, for tbhe
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 
PREFACE.
FOR every intelligent American citizen the minute details of
the career of any man who has figured prominently in the political
affairs of his country, cannot be devoid of interest. The leading
facts in the public life of such a man as Stephen A. Douglas,
especially, must possess an interest absorbing and intense, far beyond
that excited by the events connected with the most of those who
have actively participated in the stirring scenes which have transpired of late years in the halls of our National Legislature.
Mr. Douglas was so emphatically a self-made man, that the
sympathies of every one struggling upward against fortune and
misfortune, through evil report and through good report, must be
keenly awakened by the particulars of his early history; he was sc
successful, and at such an early age, that not a little of the tinge of
romance rests upon many passages of his life; he was so energetic
and resoluite in whatever he undertook; that his highly-charged
temperament-outcropping in familiar chat, elaborate letter, offhand- speech, running debate, and finished oration-exhilarates all
who are brought in contact with-its manifestations; he was so skilled
in the polemics of politics, that his Congressional record constitutes
a well-furnished storehouse, from which the young aspirant for
fame in forensic fence may select the best weapons, offensive and
defensive, adapted to almost every possible emergency and contin
gency; he was so much at home upon the stump, that most of his
extemporaneous efforts may safely be recommended as models for
the student in that accomplishment, deemed by Americans the
greatest, the art of speaking to the crowd, rather than at them; he
was so warm a friend and so decided a hater, that every positive
3
it)
p
,I
I
.4
I
I
(O
I
'-3
i 
PREFACE.
nature must in a measure identify itself with him; he was so pa ricn.
larly a man of the people, that the faithful portraiture of him —and
the best possible is that furnished by himself in his speeches and
debates-must keep his memory fresh and green in the popular
heart, the more he is comprehended, the better he is understood; and
finally, he died comparatively so young, that a tender, melancholy
invests his, as it were, unfinished life.
The occurrences of the past two years have served as an apocalypse
to the most of us; and in the light of this new revelation the
exciting events associated with much of the Congressional legisla.
tion of the past twenty years beget far other feelings than formerly
were aroused. We are, necessarily, more charitable in our judgments of our political opponents of other days. A closer acquaintance with many of them has tended to materially change the
opinions we once honestly entertained of such. Besides-saddest
occurrence that can befal a trustful spirit!-from many with whom
we ever have acted, whose names we fondly deemed towers of
strength, the mask has fallen, and we have been forced to see them,
not as we thought them-not as we would have seen them-but as
they are-our party's and-what is higher far than  party-our
country's direst foes.
With these changed and still changing views, it cannot be undesirable to pass the leading political events of those years again and
again in review.  There are lessons to be gleaned from them which
we have not even yet fully learned.
With these events the lamented Douglas was closely identified;
and the following pages, which are believed to contain a true and
faithful exposition of the leading incidents of his brilliant and
instructive career, have been prepared in the hope that they may
occasion somewhat at least of the careful study which the life of so
great a man deserves,
4 
CO I TENTS.
CHAPTER L
#AM
~ 10
UITRODUCTORY,... 
A
CHAPTER II.
Parentage, Birth, and early Life of Stephen A. Douglas-He Studies Law
-Goes to the West-Teaches School-Admitted to Practise Law-His
Success as a Lawyer, and the Causes of it-Becomes Attorney General
of Illinois-Elected to the State Legislature-Electioneers for Martin
Van Buren for President, in 1840-Makes 207 Speeches in that Year,
and carries Illinois for the Democracy-Becomes a Judge of the
Supreme Court-Is Elected to Congress in 1843,..  16
CHAPTER m.
Mr. Douglas' First Session in Congress-His Speech upon the Improve.
ment by Congress of Western Rivers and Harbors-His Great Speech on
the Bill to Refund General Jackson's Fine-General Jackson's Opinion
of the Speech-Mr. Douglas Reelected to Congress,...  20
CHAPTER IV.
Speech in Favor of the Re-Annexation of Texasw-Mr. Douglas reports Joint
Resolutions, declaring Texas to be one of the United States —Texas
Annexed,............... e
a 0 0 
CONTE,KTS.
CHAPTER V.
Speech in Vindication of the Administration-Mr. Pquglas elected to Con.
gress a third time,.....        28
CHAPTER VI.
)r. Douglas Elected to the ifnited States Senate-He opposes the Wllmot
Proviso-Speech on the Ten Regiment Bill-Bill for the Establishment
of the Territory of Nebraska-Pass to Gen. Santa Anna-Exertions of
Mr. Douglas in procuring Grants of Land to the Illinois Central Railroad
-He endeavors to extend the Missouri Compromise Line to the Paciflo
Ocean-The Design defeated by Northern Votes-Bill for the Admission
of California-Indian Titles in the North-west-Protection to Emi  grants,............ 
CHAPTER VII.
Mr. Douglas supports the Compromise Measures of Henry Clay-Great
Speech on the 13th and 14th of March-Speech in favor of the Omnibus
Bill, June 3-The Nicholson Letter of General Cass-Mr.  Douglas re  turns to Chicago-He is Denounccd by the Local Authorities-He
beards the Lions in their Den-Speech to the Citizens of Chicago-Its
Effect, 9...........  89
CHAPTER VIII.
lpeech in favor of making Gen. Winfield Scott a Lieutenant-General  Speech on-the Fugitive Slave Law-Speech on the Foreign Policy of the
United States-Retrospective View of the Course of Mr. Douglas in
Congress up to this Time (1852)-Mr. Douglas the real Author of the
Compromise Measures of 1850-Bill for the Organization of the Territo ries of Kansas and Nebraska -- Mr. Douglas opposes the Oregon Treaty
with England-Opposes the'Peace Treaty with Mexico-Speech'on the
Clayton and Bulwer Treaty-Report on the Organization of Nebraska
and Kansas-The Nebraska Bill-Debate on it-The bil passed,.  47
CHAPTER IX.
Mr. Douglas at Chicago, 1954,...........    66
vi 
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER X.
Report of Mr. Douglas on the Territorial Policy of the Government Speech in Reply to Trumbull, and in Support of the Bill authorizing the
People of Kansas to form a Constitution and State Government-Speech
in Reply to Mr. Collamer-The Bill passed by the Senate-Report of
Mr. Douglas on the House Bill,......      72
CHAPTER XI.
A Retrospect-Origin and Causes of Disagreement with the President  Not Provoked by Mr. Douglas-Mr. Buchanan owes his Nomination at
Cincinnati to Mr. Douglas-Telegraphic Dispatches-His Efforts to Elect
Mr Buchanan in 1856-Speech at Springfield in 1857, defending the
Administration-President's Instructions to Governor Walker-Consti  tution to be Submitted-Executive Dictation-Differences of Opinion
tolerated on all Subjects except Lecompton-Mr. Douglas' Propositions
for Adjustment-Resolutions of Illinois Democracy-Controversy termi  nated by the English Bill-War Renewed by the Administration-Coali  tion between the Federal Officeholders and the Abolitionists —Mr. Dou.
glas' last Speech in the Senate preparatory to Illinois Canvass,.   80
CHAPTER XII.
New  Aspect of Affairs at the Federal Capitol-Mr. Douglas calls on
the President for Information in regard to Affairs in Kansas-Great
Speech of Mr. Douglas against the Lecompton Constitution-Speech in
Favor of the Crittenden-Montgomery Amendment-Speech on the Eng - lish Bill-Speech in favor of conferring on the President Power to pun  ish British Outrages,........         98
CHAPTER XIII.
Mr. Douglas returns to Chicago-Brilliant Reception-Makes his Speech
opening the Campaign-Laysdown Principles on which he eudacted
it...........           104
-,-ii 
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER XIV.
-Mr. Douglas leaves Chicago for New Orleans-Received at St. Louis  and
Memphis-Brilliant Reception at New Orleans...  142
CHAPTER XV.
Mr. Douglas again in Washington-Experiences a Change of Atmosphere Scene shifts-Removed from Post of Chairman of Territorial. Commit tee-His Services as Chairman-Pretext of Removal-Freeport Speech Letter to California in reply to Dr. Gwin,...        144
CHAPTER XVI.
Letters to Dorr and Peyton-Speeches in Ohio, and Cincinnati Platform
Charleston Convention-Presidental Aspirants-The Harper Article Black's Reply-Appendix of Attorney General-Rejoinder of Senator
Douglas-The Chase and Trumbull Amendments-Consistency of Sena
tor Douglas,................168
CHAPTER XVHII.
Great Speech of Mr. Douglas on the Harper's Ferry Invasion-Anxiety to
hear him-His Speeches in Reply to Senators Fessenden, Jeff. Davis,
and Seward-The Caucus of Senators-Their Utopian Platform,. 189
CHAPTER XVIII.
Conventions of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and
Michigan; also of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and
New York-Claims of the North-west-Conclusion,...  205
viii 
LIFE AND SPEECHES
or
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.
T'H  object of the author of this book is to present to the
people of the United States a truthful delineation of the
character and qualities of one of the greatest American statesmen.
The public life of Mr. Douglas naturally divides itself into
five periods. The first, from his entrance into Congress in
1843, to the close of the war against Mexico, in 1848.
Second, from the close of the Mexican War to the passage of
the Compromise measures of 1850. Third, from the passage
of the Compromise of 1850, to the passage of the Nebraska
Bill in 1854. Fourth, from the passage of the Nebraska Bill,
to the third election of Mr. Douglas to the Senate, in the fall
of 1858. Fifth, from the commencement of his third Senato
rial term, in March, 1859, to his too early decease.
During the first period, Mr. Douglas appears among the
most active and influential friends of the re-annexation of
.      
10  THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
Texas to the United States, and causes to be run thro, gt
Texas tbe Missouri Compromise line of 36~ 30'; and wren
the war with Mexico breaks out, he is found among the
ablest supporters of the administration, and one of the foremost of our statesmen in upholding the honor of our flag
and in prosecuting the war with a vigor and prudence that
led to an honorable and satisfactory peace. In this period,
too, Mr. Douglas is seen endeavoring to carry out in good
faith the principles of the Missouri Compromise, by extending
the line of 36~ 30' westward through our acquisitions from
Mexico to the Pacific Ocean; in which attempt he was frus
trated by northern Freesoilers.
GREAT MEASURES OF MR. DOUGLAS.
The second period was one of the most important in the
whole life of Mr. Douglas.  He is seen at this time, shaping
and molding for the territories of the United States, those
institutions of government upon which his fame as a statesman rests, and upon which depend the happiness of millions
of American citizens, and the prosperity of a dozen new
States.  In treating of this period of the life of Mr. Douglas,
I have shown that he is the real author of the Compromise
measures of 1850, so generally attributed to HIenry Clay.
In this period, too, we see Mr. Douglas coming home to his
constituents, and in the presence of an infuriated mob, proclaiming the propriety and expediency of those measures
with such matchless eloquence, that the voices of faction and
fanaticism were hushed, and the citizens of Chicago passed
resolutions declaring their adherence to those very measures
which they had the day before denounced.
Toward the close of the third period, we see Mr. Dougias
bringing forward the details of his great plan for the gov
ernment of the territories, in the shape of the Kansas and 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
Nebraska bills; explaining and elucidating the princil,lea
upon which they are based, and urging their adoption by
Congress. Anc when these measures were passed, we see
him coming home to a constituency that refused to hear hiiii
vindicate their justice and propriety.
During the fourth period, we see the evils that resulted in
Kansas, from attempts to evade or disregard the principles
of the Nebraska Bill.  We see the President of the United
States exerting the whole strength of his administration in
attempting to force a constitution repugnant to their wishes
on the people of Kansas; and iMr. Douglas energetically and
with all his might resisting the tyrannical proceeding, and
vindicating the right of the people of the territories in all
time to come, to form and regulate their domestic institutions
in their own way. When the British also, in 1858, attacked no
less than thirty-three of our vessels in the space of four weeks,
and when the Senate were about to pass the customary
resolutions, declaring that such acts were very annoying tc
the United States, and ought not to be committed, we see
Mr. Douglas urging upon Congress the instant adoption of
such energetic measures on our part as should compel Great
Britain not only to cease such outrages in fuiture, but also to
make reparation for those she had committed.
c"THE RETURN FROM ELBA."
During this period also, we see the great campaign in the
autumn of 1858, the election of a senator firom Illinois for
the next six years, the gallant stand made by Mr. Douglas,
and the unscrupulous efforts made by federal officials and
Abolitionists to crush him.  Like Napoleon on his return
from Elba,  Mr.  Douglas, on  his return to Illinois, in.
spired his numerous friends with unbounded enthusiasm.
We see the momentous struggle between Mr. Douglas and the
11 
12     THE LIFE'AND SPEEOIHE[  OF
Democratic party on the one side, and the allied forces
of the Republicans, Abolitionists, and office-holders on
the other. We see the battles and skirmishes of the cam
paign; in every engagement, we see the utter discomfiture
of the unholy alliance, and the triumph of the right-and
always, min the forefront of the battle, we hear the clarion
voice of the great leader of the democracy. Finally, we see
his victory over all his enemies, and witness his triumphant
return to the Senate, bearing high aloft the glorious banner
of the Democracy, unstained and untarnished.
During the last period, we see the hostility of the Executive
manifested in the removal of Mr. Douglas from the chair.
manship of the Committee on Territories; the war of the
pamphlets; the Senate proceedings following the horrible
plot of John Brown; and the ridiculous attempt on the part
of a few senators to make a platform for the Charleston
Convention entirely incompatible with the known principles
of Mr. Douglas. We see the uprising of the people all over
the nation in favor of Mr. Douglas for the Presidency, the
proceedings of the several State conventions, and their
unanimity in designating Mr. Douglas as their choice above
all other men. Finally, we see the meeting of the Charleston
Convention; and the nomination of Judge Douglas for the
Presidency, in spite of the determined effort of factionists.
PERSONAL APPEARANCE.
The Rev. Wm. H. Milburn, the blind preacher, in his
interesting book," Ten Years of Preacher Life," gives the
following graphic sketch of his impressions of Mr. Douglas:
"The first time I saw Mr. Douglas was in June, 1888, standing on the
gallery of the Market House, which some of my reader may recollect as
situate in the middle of the square of Jacksonville. He and Colonel John
J. Hardin were engaged in canvassing Morgan County for Congress. He
4 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
ras ulpon the threshold of that great   orld in which he has since.tlayed
80so prominent a part, and was engaged in making one of his earliest stump
speeches.  I stood and listened to him, surrounded by a motley crowd ot
backwood farmers and hunters, dressed in homespun or deerskin, my
boyish breast glowing with exultant joy, as he, only ten years my senior,
battled so bravely for the doctrines of his party with the veteran and accomplished Hardin. True, I had been educated in political sentimenta
opposite to his own, but there was something  captivating in his manly
straightforwardness and uncompromising statement of his political principles. He even then showed signs of that dexterity in debate, and vehement, impressive declamation, of which he has since become such a master.
He gavd the crowd the color of his own mood as he interpreted their
thoughts and directed their sensibilities. His first-hand knowledge of the
people, and his power to speak to them in their own language, employing
arguments suited to their comprehension, sometimes clinching a series of
reasons by a frontier metaphor which refused to be forgotten, and his determined courage, which never shrank from any form of difficulty or danger, made him one of the most effective stump-orators I have ever heard.
Less than four years before, he had walked into the town of Winchester, sixteen miles southwest of Jacksonville, an entire stranger, with
thirty-seven and a half cents in his pocket, his all of earthly fortune.  His
first employment was as clerk of a' Vandu,' as the natives call a sheriff's
sale.  He then seized the birch of the pedagogue, and sought by its aid
and by patient drilling, to initiate a handful of half-wild boys into the sublime mysteries of Lindley Murray. His evenings were divided between
reading newspapers, studying Blackstone, and talking politics.  He, before
long, by virtue of his indomitable energy, acquired enough of legal lore to
pass an examination, and'to stick up his shingle,' as they call putting up
a lawyer's sign. And now began a series of official employments, by
which he has mounted within five and twenty years, from the obscurity of
a village pedagogue on the borders of civilization, to his present illustrious
and commanding position. In the twelve or thirteen years that had
elapsed from the time of his entering the State, a friendless, penniless
youth, he has served his fellow-citizens in almost every official capacity,
and entered the highest position within their power to confer.
"No man, since the days of Alldrew Jackson, has gained a stronger hold
upon the confidence and attachment of his adherents, or exercised a more
dominating authority over the masses of his party than Judge Douglas
Whether upon the stump, in the caucus, or the Senate, his power and s-ic
cess in debate are prodigious.  His instincts stand him in the stead o;
imagination, and amount to genius.
13 
14 -   THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
"Notw:thstanding the busy and boisterous political life which lie has led
with all its engrossing cares and occupations, Mr. Douglas has, neverthe
less, by his invincible perseverance, managed to redeem much time for
self-improvement.   He  has been a wide and studious reader of history
and its kindred branches.  Contact with affairs has enlarged his understanding and strengthened hisjudgment. Thus, with his unerrili)g sagacity,
his matured and decisive character, with a courage which sometimes appears to be audacity, but which is in reality tempered by prudence, a will
that never submits to an obstacle, however vast, and a knowledge of the
people, together with a power to lead them, incomparable in this generation, he may b'e accepted as a practical statesman  of the highest
order.
The correspondent of the New York "Times" describes
]1r. Douglas as follows: "The Little Giant, as he has been
well styled, is seen to advantage on the floor of the Senate.
He is not above the middle height; but the easy and natural
dignity of his manner stamps him at once as one born to
command. His massive head rivets undivided attention. It
is a head of the antique, with something of the infinite in its
expression of power: a head difficult to describe, but better
worth description than any other in the country. Mr. Douglas has a brain of unusual size, covered with heavy masses of
dark brown hair, now beginning to be sprinkled with silver.
His forehead is high, open, and splendidly developed, based
on dark, thick eyebrows of great width. His eyes, large and
deeply set, are of the darkest and most brilliant blue. The
mouth is cleanly cut, finely arched, but with something of
bitter and sad experience in its general expression.  The
chin is square and vigorous, and is full of eddying dimplesthe muscles and nerves showing great mobility, and every
thought having some external reflexion in the sensitive and
expressive features. Add now a rich, dark complexion, clear
and healthy; smoothly shaven cheeks; and handsome throat;
small, white ears; eyes which shoot out electric fires; small
white hands; small feet; a ful chest and broad shoulders; 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
and with these points duly blended together, we have a pie.
ture of the Little Giant.
"As a speaker, Mr. Douglas seems to disdain ornament,
and marches right on against the body of his subject with
irresistible power and directness.  Hlis rhetorical assault has
nothing of the cavalry slash in its impressiveness, rather
resembling a charge of heavy infantry with fixed bayonet,
and calling forcibly to mind the attack of those'six thousand
English veterans " immortalized by Thomas Davis
"'Steady they step adown the slope,
Steady they climb the hill;
Steady they load-steady they fire    Marching right onward still.'
Hiis voice is a rich and musical baritone, swelling into ocra
sional clarion-blasts toward the close of each important
period. He is heard with breathless attention, except when
now and again the galleries feel tempted to applaud-these
demonstrations appearing to give particular uneasiness to the
Administration, Secession, and Republican senators."
Mr. Douglas was twice married. He left two little sons,
the children- of his first wife, who was a southern lady. In
1857, he married Miss Adele Cutts, daughter of James
Madison Cutts, Esq., second Controiler of the Treasury, a
beautiful and accomplished woman, and well known in
Washington for the amiability of her disposition, and the
goodness of her heart. Hie had one child, a daughter, by
his second marriage.
2
1A' 
l TE LIFE AND  SPRE[EIE8 O0
CHAPTER H.
Parentage, Birth, and early Life of Stephen A. Douglas-He Studies Law
-Goes to the West-Teaehes School-Admitted to Practise Law-His
Success as a Lawye:, and the Causes of itBecomes Attorney General
of Illinois-Elected to the State Legislature-Electioneers for Martin
Van Buren for President, in 1840-Makes 207 Speeches in that Year,
and  carries Illinois for the Democracy-Becomes -a Judge of the
Supreme Court-Is Elected to Congress in 1843.
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS was born in the town of Brandon,
Vermont, on the 23d day of April, 1813. His father was a
native of the State of New York, and a physician of high
repute. His grandfather was a Pennsylvanian by birth, and
a soldier in the Revolutionary War. He was one of those
soldiers of Washington who passed that terrible winter at
Valley Forge, and was present at the surrender of Lord Cornwallis.  His great-grandfather was also an American by birth,
but his ancestors came originally to this country from Scotland. Dr. Douglas died when his little son Stephen was only
three months old. From the age of ten to that of fifteen
years, Stephen was sent to the common schools of the neighborhood. During the last two years of this term, he was
noted for remarkable aptitude for his studies, and was ex
tremely diligent and attentive.  His quick perception, excellent memory, and determination to excel in his studies, were
subjects of remark by his teachers, even at that early period.
His disposition was amiable and kind, of which fact there
are numerous instances related by those who were his school. 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
fellows. His tenmper, however, was naturally quick and
vivacious.
At the age of fifteen, he expressed to his mother his
earnest desire to prepare for college; but it was decided at
a family council that the expense of a collegiate education
would make that idea impossible. " Well, then," said
Stephen, "I will earn my own livibg;" and he immediately
engaged himself as an apprentice to the trade of cabinetmaling, which was then an excellent and lucrative business.
He worked at this trade for eighteen months, and then
abandoned it altogether, as it proved entirely too severe for
his constitution. His master has since jocularly remarked,
that during the time Stephen was with him, he displayed
his greatest ingenuity in the construction of bureaus, cabinets, and secretaries.  At the age of seventeen, he entered
the academy at Brandon, and pursued his studies there for
more than a year.  His mind was extremely active at this
time, and he made rapid advancement in those branches of
learning to which he directed his attention.   When the
family removed to Canandaigua, New York, he attended the
academy there as a student. Having decided to make the
law his profession, he entered the office of Mr. Ilubbell ard
studied law till 1833.
EAnLY LIFE.
In the spring of that year he went to the West, in search
of an eligible place in which to establish himself as a lawycr.
He went to a number of cities and towns in the West,
among them Cincinnati, Louisville, St. Louis, and Jacksonville, Illinois. At Winchester, a little town sixteen miles
from Jacksonville, he found there was no school, and immemediately opQned one. He obtained forty pupils without
any difficulty, whom he taught for three months, at $3 00 pel
17 
18     TliE LIFE AND SPEECHES')F
quarter. He devoted his evenings, during this time, to the
prosecution cf his law studies.  In March, 1834, lie was
admitted to practise law, by the judges of the Stipreme
Court of the State.  lie at once opened a law o.ce, and
became remarkably successful as a legal practitioner.
Within a year after his admission, and while not yet
twenty-two years of age, he was elected by the legislature
of Illinois, attorney-general of the State.  In.1836, he was
elected to the legislature by the Democrats of Morgan
County, and resigned the office of attorney-general. At the
time he took his seat in the legislature, he was the youngest
member of that body. In 1837, he was appointed by Presi.
dent Van Buren register of the land-office at Springfield,
Illinois. In November of the same year, he received the
Democratic nomination for Congress, although hlie was then
under twenty-five years of age, and consequently ineligible.
He attained the requisite age, however, before the day of
election, which was in August, 1838. At this election
upward of 36,000 votes were cart, of which Mr. Douglas ret
ceived a majority.  About twenty votes were rejected by the
canvassers, because in them the name of Mr. Douglas was
spelled incorrectly. The quibble was a most unworthy one,
and would not stand at this day. As it was, the Whig candidate was declared to be elected by a majority of only five
votes; and the election was everywhere regarded as a
triumph of MIr. Douglas.
MR. DOUGLAS AS A LAWYER.
Retiring now from political life, Mr. Doug'Jl   devoted
himself with assiduity to the practice of his profession.  He
was an able and successful lawyer, and his business increased
rapidly. There are many persons now living, who were
clients and neighbors of Mr. Douglas at this time, and who 
TE PHEN   A. DOUGLAS.
temember well his demeanor as an advocate. Hle was notedl
among other things, for the careful preparat.on of his cases,
and for his tact and skill in the examination of witnesses
Hie never went into court with a case until he thoroughly
understood it in all its bearings. His addresses to the jury
were generally plain and clear statements of the matters of
fact, the arguments logical and conclusive, and his manner
earnest and impressive. He rarely failed to enlist the feelings and sympathies of a jury.
In the year 1840, Mr. Douglas entered with ardor into the
celebrated "Hard Cider and Log Cabin" campaign, and
threw the whole weight of his influence in favor of Martin
Van Buren, the democratic candidate for President, and
against the "Tippecanoe and Tyler too " candidates of the
Whig party.  During seven months of that year, he trversed the State of Illinois in all directions, and addressed
207 meetings of the people. General Harrison was elected
President, but Illinois was carried for the Democratic candi.
dates, and Mr. Douglas was mainly instrumental in bringing
about this result.
HMR. DOUGLAS ELECTD TO CONGRESS.
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.d
In December, 1840, Mr. Douglas was appointed secretary
of state of Illinois.  In February, 1841, he was elected Ly
the legislature a judge of the Supreme Court of the State.
This was only seven years after he had received, from the
judges of that court, his license to practise law.  He remained upon the bench of the Supreme Court for three
years.  In 1843 he was elected to Congress by 400 majoirity;
and in 1844 by a majority of 1,900 votes. He was ele ted a
representative a third time in 1846, by a majority of,000
votes.
19
I  
20    THE LIFE AND 8PEECHES OF
CHAPTER IiI.
iMr. Douglas' First Session in Congress-His Speech upon the Improve.
ment by Congress of Western Rivers and Harbors-His Great Speech on
the Bill to Refund General Jackson's Fine-General Jackson's Opinicn
of the Speech-Mr. Douglas Reelected to Congress.
ON taking his seat in Congress, Mr. Douglas did not at
once rush into the debates of the House. He was perfectly
informed concerning the interests of his constituents, over
which he exercised a watchful care. But for the first session
or two of Congress, he spoke rarely, and briefly; familiarizing himself, by study and observation, with the rules of
debate, and the usages of parliamentary bodies. When he
did rise to address the House, it was on some practical
question; and his remarks were always forcible, and to the
point.
IMPROVEMENT OF WESTERN RIVERS.
His first speech in Congress was upon the improvement ot
western lakes and harbors, delivered December 19, 1843
He had moved that so much of the President's message as
referred to that subject, be referred to a select committee.
He insisted upon a select committee, "because the question
involved important interests requiring an accurate knowledge of the condition of the country, its navigable
streams, and the obstructions to be removed. A thorough
eamination of subjects so various, extensive, and intricate.
I
1. 
STEPIIEN A. DOUGLAS.
and requiring so much patient labor and toil, could not be
expected from those who reside at a great distance.  He
desired a full, elaborate, and detailed report from those
whose local positions would stimulate them.  Let this be
granted, and the friends of the measure would be content to
leave its policy and propriety to the judgment of the
House." While Mr. Douglas has never ceased to take a lively
interest in river and harbor improvements and the protection
of inland navigation, experience soon convinced him that the
practice of appropriating from the federal treasury for such
purposes had utterly failed to accomplish its object, and
that a system of tonnage duties which he matured, and on
several occasions has introduced into the Senate, should be
substituted for Congressional appropriations. Since the system of tonnage duties has been elaborated in Congress, and
is becoming understood by the public, the most enlightened
friends of the navigating interests are becoming satisfied that
the substitute proposed by Mr. Douglas would prove not
)nly more economical, but more effective and beneficial in
he accomplishment of their views.
In connection with this subject, it should be added, that
Mr. Douglas was mainly instrumental in securing the passage
of the law by which the maritime and admiralty jurisdiction
of the federal courts was extended over the northern lakes.
SPEECI IN FAVOR OF REMITTING GEN. JACKSON'S FINIL
On the 7th of January, 1844, he delivered an eloquent
speech on the bill to refund to Gen. Jackson, the fine unjustly
imposed on him by Judge Hall, of New Orleans.  From
this speech we make the following extracts:
"I maintaia," said Mr. Douglas, "that in the exercise of
the power of proclaiming martial law, Gen. Jackson did not
violate the Constitutions nor assume to himself any authority
21 
22    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
not ally authorized and legalized by his position, hLs duty
and the necessity of the case.  Gen. Jackson vras the agent
(,f tile government, legally and constitutionally authorized to
defend the city of New Orleans. It was his duty to do this
at all hazards. It was then conceded, and is now conceded,
that nothing but martial law would enable him tc perform
that duty. His power was commensurate with his duty, and
he was authorized to use the means essential to its performance.  This principle has been recognized and acted upon by
all civilized nations, and is familiar to all who are conversant
with military history. It does not imply the right to suspend
the laws and civil tribunals at pleasure. The right grows
out of the necessity. The principle is, that the commanding
general may go as far, and no further than is absolutely
necessary to the defence of the place committed to his protection.  There are exigencies in the history of nations,
when necessity becomes the paramount law, to which all
other considerations must yield.  If it becomes necessary to
blow up a fort, it is right to do it. If it is necessary to sink
a ship, it is right to sink it. If it is necessary to burn a city,
it is right to burn it."
*    *    *    *    *    *    *    *          *
Mr. Douglas then gave a graphic description of the state of
affairs at New Orleans in December, 1814, and January, 1815;
concluding thus: "The enemy, composed of disciplined
troops, four times as numerous as our own force, were in the
immediate vicinity of the city, ready for the attack at any
moment;  the city, filled with traitors, anxious  to surrender; spies transmitting information to the enemy's camp.
The governor of the State, the judges, the public authorities,
And all the chief citizens, earnestly entreated Gen. Jackson to
declare martial law, as the only means of maintaining the
safety of the city. Gen. Jackson promptly issued the order,
and enforced it by the weight of his authority. The city
I 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
was saved. The country was defended by a succession of
the most brilliant military achievements that ever adorned
the annals of any country or any age. Martial law was continued no longer than the danger existed. Judge Hall himself had advised, urged, and solicited Gen. Jackson to
declare it."
*    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *
"The last of the high crimes and misdemeanors imputed
to Gen. Jackson at New Orleans, is that of arresting Judge
Hall, and sending him beyond the limits of the city, with
instructions not to return till peace was restored. The
justification of this act is found in the necessity which
required the declaration of martial law, and its continuance
and enforcement until the enemy should have left, or the
treaty of peace be ratified. Judge Hall, who was by birth
an Englishman, had confederated with Louallier's band of
conspirators. Their movements were dangerous. Gen.
Jackson took the responsibility, and sent the judge beyond
the lines of his camp.  Was this a contempt of court?"
*    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *
"I envy not the feelings of the man who  can calmly
reason about the force of precedents in the fuiry of the
war-cry, when'booty and beauty' is the watchword.  Talk
not to me of''forms, and rules of court' when the enemy's
cannon are pointed at the door! The man who could philosophize at such times, would fiddle while the Capitol was
burning. There was but one form necessary on that occasion, and that was, to point cannon and destroy the enemy."
*    *    *    *    *    *   I*    *    *
"I grant that the bill is unprecedented: but I desire, on
this day, to make a precedent that shall command the admi
ration of the world. Besides, sir, the government hag
repeatedly recognized and sanctioned the doctrine, that in
eases of necessity, the commander is fully justified in super
23 
24     THE LIFE AND SPEA,HES OF
seding the civil law; and that Congress will make remunera
tion, when the commander acted with the view of promoting
the public interests.  The people demand this measure, and
they will never be satisfied till their wishes shall have been
respected, and their will obeyed."
JACKSON'S OPINION OF THIS SPEECH.
The bill was passed, and the fine refunded. A year after
ward, Mr. Douglas, in company with several other members
of Congress, paid their respects to the venerable hero and
patriot, at the Hermitage. When Mr. Douglas was intro
duced, the old general grasped him warmly by the hand, and
requested him to step with him into a private room. There,
in the presence of two other gentlemen now living, and from
one of whom we have received this relation, the venerable
soldier, in a voice trembling with emotion, thus addressed
the young statesman': "Mr. Douglas, I read, with feelings
of lively gratitude, your speech in Congress last winter, in
favor of remitting the fine imposed on me by Judge Hall. I
knew when I proclaimed and enforced martial law, that I
was doing right. But never, until I had read your speech,
could I have expressed the reasons which actuated my con
duct. I knew that I was not violating the Constitution of
my country. When my life is written, I wish that speech
of yours to be inserted in it, as my reasons for proclaiming
and enforcing martial law in New Orleans."  - 
BTEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
CHAPTER IV.
RE-ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.
SIpeech in Favor of the Re-Annexation of Texas-Mr. Douglas reports Joint
Resolutions, declaring Texas  to be one of the United States-Texas
Annexed.
MR. DOUGLAS was among the earliest advocates of the
annexation of Texas; on which subject he made an able
speech on the 6th of January, 1845. In this speech he
showed that the Texas question was not at that time a new
one: that it did not originate with Mr. Tyler: that one of
first acts of the administration of Gen. Jackson had been to
re-open negotiations with Mexico for the annexation of
Texas: that Mr. Van Buren, then secretary of state, had
addressed a long dispatch to Mr. Poinsett, our minister to
Mexico, instructing him to endeavor to secure Texas, and
directing him to give $5,000,000 for it: that the attempt
had been renewed by President Jackson in 1833, and again
in 1835. iHe showed by the authority of John Quincy
Adams, in his official letters, especially the one dated
March 12, 1818, that the western boundary of Louisiana
extended to the Rio del Norte: that the settlements made
between the rivers Sabine and Rio del Norte, by La Salle,
in 1685, under the authority of Louis XIV., king of France,
together with those on the Mississippi and the Illinois,
formed the basis of the original French colony of Louisiana,
which was ceded to the United States in 1803; and quoted
the language of Mr. Adams, "that the claim of the United
25 
20     TH, E iIFE AND SPEECHES OF
States to the boundary of the Rio Bravo del Norte was as
clear as their right to the island of New Orleans."
He then went on to show that as the Rio del Norte was
the western boundary of Louisiana, and Texas was included
in the cession of 1803, all the inhabitants of that country
were, by the terms of the treaty, naturalized, and became
citizens of the United States; and all who migrated there
between 1803 and 1819 went there under the shield of the
Constitution and laws of the United States, and with the
guaranty that they would be forever protected by them,
and quoted from the treaty of cession as follows: "The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated into the
Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible,
according to the principles of the Constitution, to the enjoyments of all the rights of the United States."
"To the fulfillment of these stipulations," said Hr. Douglas, "the sacred faith and honor of this nation were solemnly
pledged. Yet, in violation of one of them, Texas was ceded
to Spain by the treaty of 1819. The American Republic
was severed by that treaty, a part of its territory joined to
a foreign kingdom, and American citizens were transformed
into the subjects of a foreign despotism. Texas did not
assent to the separation; she protested against it promptly
and solemnly. The protest and declaration of independence
of Texas, in June, 1819, says,'The recent treaty between
Spain and the United States has dissipated an illusion, and
has aroused the citizens of Texas. They see themselves
abandoned to the dominion of Spain; but, spurning the fetters of colonial vassalage, they resolve, under the blessing
of God, to be free and independent.'
"Most nobly have they maintained that righteous resolve;
first, against the despotism of Spain, and then the tyranny
of Mexico, until, on the plains of San Jacinto, victory estab.
ished their independence and made them free." 
STEPITIEN A. DO GLAS8q
Mr. Douglas proceeded to enumerate the advantages that
would attend the annexation of Texas, and then went on to
show that it must be done in accordance with the principl)le
of the Constitution; proving the doctrine to have been sane.
tioned and settled, that foreign territory may be annexed,
organized into territories and States, and admitted into the
Union on an equal f(oting with the original States.  In con.
eluding his remarks upon this point, Mr. Douglas said, "The
conclusion is irresistible that Congress, possessing the power
to admit a State, has the right to pass a law of annexation.
I do not say that territory cannot be acquired in any other
way than by act of Congress. We may acquire it by con.
quest, or b)- treaty, or by discovery.  We claim the Oregon
Territory f,y virtue of the right of discovery and occupation.
But if we wish to acquire Texas without making war or
relying upon discovery, we must fall back upon the power to
admit new States, and acquire the territory by act of Congress, as one of the necessary and indispensable means of
executing that enumerated power.   Our federal system is
admirably adapted to the whole continent; and while  I
would not violate the laws of nations, nor treaty stipulations,
nor in any manner tarnish the national honor, I would exert
all legal and honorable means to drive Great Britain, and the
last vestiges of royal authority, from the continent of North
America, and extend the limits of the Republic from ocean
to ocean. I would make this an ocean-bound republic, and
have no more disputes about boundaries or red lines upon
maps."
The treaty for the annexation of Texas having failed in
the Senate, Mr. Douglas, among others, introduced joint
resolutions in the House of Representatives for the annexa
tion of Texas to the United States; and at the next session,
being chairman of the Committee on Territories, reported
the bill by which Texas was declared one of the States
27 
28      THS LIFI! AN] SPEECHES OF
CHAPTER V.
WAR WITH MEXICO.
Speech in Vindication of the Administration-Mr. Douglas elected to Go
gress a third time.
MR. DOUGLAS vigorously supported the administration of
President Polk, in the measures it adopted for the prosecu.
tion of the war against Mexico; and on the 13th of May,
1846, made a long and able speech in favor of the bill making
appropriations for the support of the army. The object of
this speech was to vindicate our government, and to demon.
strate that it had not been in the wrong, in the origin and
progress of the war. It will be remembered that the war
Mwas denounced by the Whig party as unholy and damnable,
and the government of the United States was vilified and
traduced without measure, for taking the only course that
could be taken, in order to preserve the national honor.
Henry Clay, the great leader of the Whigs, did not, indeed,
join in this shamefill cry. His eldest son, Henry Clay, jr.,
fought gallantly in the war, and fell at Buena Vista: and the
old patriot was not one of those who gave aid and comfort to
the enemy. But Thomas Corwin, and others like him, declared in Congress that while the President could command
the army, they thanked heaven that they could command the
purse, and that he should have no funds to prosecute this
war; and called upon the Mexicans to welcome the soldiers 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
of the American army, with "bloody hands and hospitable
gra.ves!"
In reply to this, Mr. Douglas presented a mass of e idence
from official documents, showing that for years past we hadl
had ample cause for war against Mexico, and quoting the
declaration of President Jackson's. last special message, that
the wanton character of the outrages upon the persons and
property of our citizens, upon the officers and flag of the
United States, independent of recent insults to this govern.
ment and people, would justify in the eyes of nations, imme
diate war.
?[EXICAN O0TRAGFG.
"Aside from the insults to our flag," said Mr. Douglas,
4' the indignity to the nation, and the injury to our commerce,
not less than ten millions of dollars are due to our citizens,
for these outrages which Mexico has committed within the
last fifteen years. The Committee on Foreign Relations of
the U. S. Senate, said in their report in 1837, that they might
' with justice recommend an immediate resort to war or reprisals;' and the House Committee, at the same session, r-,
ported that' the merchant vessels of the United States have
been fired into, and our citizens put to death.' It should be
borne in mind that all those insults and injuries were committed before the annexation of Texas-before the proposition of annexation was ever seriously entertained by this
government. For offences much less aggravated, France
made-her demand for reparation, and proclaimed her ultimatum fiom the deck of a man-of-war off Vera Cruz. Redress
being denied, the French fleet opened their batteries on the
Castle of San Juan de Ulloa, compelled the fortress to sur
render, and the Mexican government to accede to their de.
mands, and to pay $200,000 in addition, to defray the expenses
of eniforcing the payment of the claim. Our wrongs are tea
29 
30      THE LIFE AND  SPEECHES OF
fold greater than those of France, in number and enormity~
yet her complaints have been heard in tones of thunder from
the mouths of her cannon.
"When the question of annexation was recently agitated,
Mexico gave notice to this government that she would regard
the consummation of the measure as a declaration of war.
She made the passage of the resolution of annexation the pre.
text for dissolving the diplomatic relations between the two
countries."
HOUSTON'S TREATY WITH SANTA ANNA.
Mr. Douglas then briefly related the facts relative to Mr.
Slidell's appointment as minister to Mexico, the contempt
tuous reception that he met with there, and his final rejection
by the government of Paredes; and also gave a brief sketch
of the early military operations on both sides. By references
to the documentary archives of the government, he proved
that the Rio Grande was the western boundary of Texas, and
cited the fact that immediately after the battle of San Ja
cinto, Santa Anna proposed to General Sam Houston, comn.
mander of the Texan army, to make a treaty of peace by
which Mexico would recognize the independence of Texas
with the Rio del Norte as the boundary, and that such a
treaty was made, in which the independence of Texas was
acknowledged by the government de facto of Mexico, and
the Rio del Norte recognized as the boundary.  He showed
that according to the well-established principles of international law, the acts of the government de facto are binding
on that nation in respect to foreign states: and concluded by
a defence of the course pursued by President Polk, in order
ing General Taylor to occupy with his forces territory that
was as much ours as Florida or Massachusetts.
Mr. Douglas was prominent among those who, in the Ore
gon controversy with Great Britain, maintained that olur 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
title to the whole of Oregon was clear and unquestionable.
Ie declared in the House of Representatives, that he would
never, now or hereafter, yield up one inch of Oregon, either
to Great Britain or to any other foreign govenment.  He
advocated the policy of giving notiee to Great Britain to terminate the joint occupation; of establishing a territorial
government over Oregon, protected by a sufficient military
force; and of putting the country at once into a state of pre.
paration, so that if war should result from the assertion of our
just rights, we might drive Great Britain and the last vestige
of royal authority from the continent of North America.
3
t
31 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
CIIAPTER VI.
Mr. Douglas Elected to the United States Senate-He opposes the Wllmot
Proviso-Speech on the Ten Regiment Bill-Bill for the Establishment
of the Territory of Nebraska-Pass to Gen. Santa Anna-Exertions of
Mr. Douglas in procuring Grants of Land to the Illinois Central Railroad
-lie endeavors to extend the Missouri Compromnise Line to the Pacifio
Ocean-The Design defeated by Northern Votes-Bill for the Admission
of California-Indian Titles in the Northwest-Protection to Emigrants
THE WAR WITH MEXICO: 1847-1848.
THE WILMOT PROVISO.
MR. DOUGLAS had been reelected to Congress in 1846; but
before Congress met, the legislature of the State of Illinois
elected him a senator for six years from the 4th of MIarch.
1847.
So far as the question of slavery was involved in the orga.
nization of territories and the admission of new States, Mr.
Douglas early took the position that Congress ought not' to
interfere on either side; but that the people of each Terri-.
tory and State should be allowed to form and regulate their
domestic institutions in their own way. In accordance with
this principle, he opposed the Wilmot Proviso whenever it
was brought up.
SPEECH ON THE TEN REGIMENT BILL.
On the 30th of January, 1848, Mr. Douglas made a speech in
the Senate on the Ten Regiment Bill, which provided for t) 4 
STEPHEN A. DOU G LAS.
raising, for a limited time, of an additional military force. In
this speech, Mr. Douglas alluded to the fact that the war with
Mexico had been in progress nearlytwo years.  The campaign
of 1846 had resulted in the most brilliant victories that ever
adorned the annals of any nation. The States of California,
New Mexico, Chihuahua, New Leon, and Tamaulipas, besides
many towns and cities in other Mlexican States, had been one
after another reduced to our possession. After a defence
of President Polk from the charge of changing his grounds
in regard to the causes of the war and the objects of prose cuting it, he showed that the war was not one of conquest,
but of self-defence forced on us by Mexico; and that the
declaration of the President, that the first blood of the war
was "American blood shed upon American soil," was the
simple truth.  "That in order to compel Mexico to do us justice, it was necessary to follow her armies into her territory, to
take possession of State after State, and hold them until she
would yield to our reasonable demands.  Indemnity for the
past, and security for the future, was the motive of the war."
When Mr. Doiiglas rose to make this speech, his desk was
piled with original Mexican documents, all official, from
which he proved that the Rio Grande always was the western
boundary of Texas. After first defeating the Mexicans, the
Texans on the 2d of November, 1836, adopted a declaration
of independence, and on 17th published their constitution.
In both of these documents, the Rio Grande was stated as the
boundary. After the memorable victory of San Jacinto, on
the 21st of April following, a treaty was made and ratified
May 12th, between Santa Anna on the part of the Mexican
government, and Gen. Houston onXe part of Texas, which
prescribed the boundary of Texas, the Rio Grande being the
western line.
M- Douglas then proceeded to show that the war had
beer.)omenced by tho act of Mexico, an4, cited the official.j
33 
34  THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
insmtructions from President Paredes to the Mexican general
commanding on the right bank of the Rio Grande, in which
he says, April, 18, 1846, "It is indispensable that hostilities
be commenced, yourself taking the initiative against the
enemy."  In closing this speech, Mr. Douglas paid a glowing
tribute to the volunteers who had so gallantly rushed to the
standard of their country, and especially to the 7,000 volunteers from Illinois.
PASS TO SANTA ANNA.
Gen. Santa Anna had been an exile from his country when
the Mexican War began; and, desiring to return to Mexico,
he was permitted to pass through our squadron. This was
done in pursuance of orders from the War Department to
the commander of our fleet in the Gulf of Mexico. The
Government was violently assailed for having permitted this;
Mr. Clayton of Delaware having charged the President, by
giving this pass to Santa Anna, with being guilty of a blunder
worse than a crime. On the  17th ofMarch, Mr. Douglas, in
a brief, but comprehensive speech, defended the policy of the
administration in this matter, and showed that the admission
of Santa Anna, so far from being a blunder, was a wise and
politic measure. The results of the war proved that he was
right, and that Mr. Clayton was mistaken.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD.
The bill granting to the State of Illinois the right of way
through the lands of the United States, which had been
originally introduced into the Senate by Mr. Douglas,
April 10, 1848, was passed on the 31st of May: the measure
owing its success mainly to his exertions. The object of the
hill was to construct a railroad connecting Chicago and the 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
great lakes of the  North, with the Mississippi River at
Cairo. The road was built, and it has proved to be of incal.
culable benefit, not only to the State of Illinois, but to the
whole country.
In the debate on the bill, Mr. Douglas explained that the
proposed road was to be the entire length of the State from
north to south, not far from 400 miles. The bill proposed
to grant the land in alternate sections, increasing the price
of the other sections to double the minimum price. It was fol
lowing the same system that had been adopted in reference to
improvements of a similar character in Ohio, Indiana, Alabama,
Iowa, and Wisconsin, by which principle each alternate
section of land was ceded, and the price of the alternate
sections not ceded was doubled, so that the same price is reaeived for the whole. These lands had been in the market
about twenty-three years; but they would not sell at the usual
price of $1 25 per acre, because they were distant from any
navigable stream. A railroad would make the lands salable
at double the usual price. The road was begun by the
State of Illinois in 1836, and about a million of dollars were
expended upon it by the State. With the exception of the
county at the -northern end of the road, more than one-ha]l
of the whole of the lands along the line were then vacant;
in most of the counties, it was so. Around the towns the
land was all taken up and cultivated, but there wero large
prairies where the land was in all its original wildness
ITS BENEFIT TO ILLINOIS.
It must be remembered that this was twelve years ago.
Illinois twelve years ago was very different from the Illinois
of to-day. There was then not a single mile of railroad in
the State; and the greater Tart of the line of the proposed
railroad passed for miles and miles without coming in sight
35 
36     THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
of a house, or any other indication of civilized life. What a
contrast now! The proposed road built, known even in
Europe as one of the most prosperous in America; other
railroads crossing it in all directi.ns; the reserved alternate
sections of land nearly all sold, at prices ranging from two
dollars and a half to seven and a quarter per acre, thus yielding to the government a much larger sum for one half than
was before asked for the whole; the whole Qf the soil of
Illinois, acknowledged to be the richest in the world, redeemed from its primitive wildness, blooming and blossoming
like a garden, and teeming with abundant harvests; a mar
ket brought to every farmer's door; and this prosperity
owing its origin and material progress to the exertions of
Mr. Douglas in securing the passage of this bill.
It is but an act of simple justice to those illustrious states
men to add, that John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay, Danie
Webster, Thomas H. Benton, and Lewis Cass, seconded the
efforts of lIr. Douglas by able and eloquent speeches in
favor of this great measure.
MISSOURI COMPROMISE REPUDIATED.
In August, 1848, MIr. Douglas offered an amendment to
the Oregon Bill, extending the Missouri Compromise line
to the Pacific Ocean, in the same sense and with the same
understanding with which it was originally adopted in 1820,
and extended through Texas in 1845.  The amendment was
adopted in the Senate, but was rejected in the House of
Representatives by northern votes.
It is important to mark well this fact. The first time that
the principles of the Missouri Compromise were even abandoned, the first time they were ever rejected by Congress,
was by the defeat of that provision in the House of Repregentatives, in 1848.  That defeat was effected by northern 
STEPIIEX A. DOUGLAS.
votes with Freesoil proclivities. It was that defeat which
reopened the slavery agitation in all its fury, and caused the
tremendous struggle of 1850.  It was that defeat which created the necessity for making a new compromise in 1850.
Who caused that defeat? Who was faithless to the principlee of the compromise of 1820? It was the very men
who in 1854, insisted that the Missouri Compromise was a
solemn compact that ought never to be violated. The very
men who, in 1854, arraigned Mr. Douglas for a departure
from the Missouri Compromise, were the men who success
fully violated it, repudiated it, and caused it to be superseded.
CALIFORNIA, INDIAN TITLES, ETC.
By the time the next session of Congress assembled, Cali fornia had been settled by all enterprising people, whose
numbers entitled them. to admission into the Union as a State.
A bill "for the admission of California as a State into the
TUnion," was introduced by Mr. Douglas on the 29th of January, 1849; but was not acted on till long afterward.
On the 18th of December, 1849, Mr. Douglas was reelected
chairman of the Senate Committee on Territories, by 33 out
of 40 votes; a position to which he was constantly thereafter
reelected, until December, 1858.
The tribes of Indians which had, until a few years before,
occupied the lands in Minnesota, Oregon, California, and New
Mexico, had never been fully divested of their title to the
same; and their constant presence there, and their depreda.
tions on the settlers, were very annoying; so much so that the
settlement of those new Territories was much impeded.
In order to remove the cause of all the trouble at once, Mr.
D)ouglas, on the 7th of January, 1850, offered a resolution
providing for the complete extinguishment of the Indian
37 
38     THE LIFE AND SPEECHES  OF
title in the Territories above named. The resolution was
debated at some length, but it was adopted; and the mea.
sures proposed have been faithfully carried out. Ample
provision was made for treating the Indians with  fairness
and justice: and while their rights have been respected, and
their comforts secured, the vast regions which they occupied
have been secured for all time to come for the abodes of
civilized men; and for the spread of those great fundamental
principles on which our national prosperity rests.
At the time that Mr. Douglas introduced his resolution,
however, the emigrants to those Territories, and especially
to those of Oregon and California, were annoyed and attacked to such an extent, by roving bands of Indians, that it
was considered positively unsafe for emigrants to go any
further west than the Missouri River. It was clearly the
duty of the Government to afford protection to its citizens
on its own soil; and accordingly, on the 31st of January,
Mr.. Douglas offered a resolution, instructing the committee
on military affairs to inquire into the expediency of providing, on the usual emigrant line from the Missouii River to
the South Pass of the Rocky Mountains, a sufficient movable
military force to protect all emigrants to Oregon and California.
To the legislation growing out of this resolution, many
hundreds of families now living in comfort and even in affluence in the smiling villages of Oregon, California, and Minnesota, are indebted, not only for their swfety, but their very
lives. The instances of emigrant trahis saved from the attack and spoliation of the savages, by our gallant troops on
the frontier, firom 1851 to 1857, are numerous and well
authenticated The settlers in those new countries owe a
debt of gratitude to Mr. Douglas which they will not soon
forget. 
ISTEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
CHAPTER VII.
CO MP R O MI SE OF 1 8 5 0.
Mr. Douglas supports the Compromise  Measures of Henry Clay-reat
Speech on the 13th and 14th of MarchSpeech in favor of the Omni bus Bill, June 3-The Nicholson Letter of General Cass-Mr. Douglas
returns  to Chicago-He is Denounced  by the Local Authorities He beards the Lions in their Den-Speech to the Citizenils of Chicago Its Effect.
WHE    the  Compromise  measures  of  Mr.  Clay  were
brought forward in 1850, Mr. Douglas supported them with
zeal and vigor. On the 13th and 14th of March, he delivered a speech on the general territorial questions, which has
scarcely been surpassed by any of his subsequent efforts. It
was by far the ablest speech that had ever been delivered in
the Senate by any western man. It was in this speech that
Judge Douglas first enunciated the doctrine of which he remained ever the most distinguished advocate, that it is
the true Democratic principle in reference to the Territories,
that each one shall be left to regulate its own local and do
mestic affairs in its own way.
In the beginning of this great speech, Senator Douglas
showed that all the acts of the Tyler administration in refer,nce to the annexation of Texas (including the proposed
treaty with Mexico for that object, and the correspondence
between our secretary of state on the one part, and Mr,
King, minister to France and Mr. Murphy, charg6 d'affaires 
40     THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
in the republic of Texas, on the other part), had been indig
nantly and contemptuously rejected by the Senate; and that
this had been done in order to repudiate and rebuke the ad —
ministration of Mr Tyler, and in order that the Democratic
party might come to the support of the annexation of Texas
as they did come, and consummated the annexation upon
broad, national grounds, elevated far above and totally dis
connected from the question of slavery.
ORDINANCE OF 1787 HAD NO EFFECT ON SLAVERY,
-  A  distinguished southern senator having said that the
South had been deprived of its due share of the territories,
Mr. Douglas responded, "What share had the South in the
territories? or the North?  I answer, none at all.  The territories belong to the United States as one people, and are to
be disposed of for the common benefit of all, according to
the principles of the Constitution. No geographical section
of the Union is entitled to any share of the territories.
What becomes of the complaint of the senator, that the
Ordinance of 1787 excluded the South entirely from that
vast fertile region between the Ohio and the Mississippi?
That ordinance was a dead letter. It did not make the coun.
try to which it applied, free from slavery. The States formed
out of the territory northwest of the Ohio, did not become
free by virtue of the Ordinance, nor in consequence of it.
Those States became free by virtue of their own will, recorded in the fundamental laws of their own making. That
is the source of their freedom.  In all republican states, laws
and ordinances are mere nullities, unless sustained by the
hearts and intellects of the people for whom they are made,
and by whom they are to be executed. 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
SLAVE-S IN ILLINCIS.
"The Ordinance of 1787 did the South no harm, and the
North no good. Illinois, for instance, was a slave territory.
Even in 1840, there were 331 slaves in Illinois. How came
these slaves in Illinois? They were taken there under the
Ordinance, and in defiance of it. The people of Illinois,
while it was a territory, were mostly emigrants from the
slaveholding States. But when their convention assembled
at Kaskaskia in 1818, to form the constitution of the State
of Illinois, although it was composed of slaveholders, yet they
had become satisfied, from experience, that the climate and
productions of Illinois were unfavorable to slave labor. They
accordingly made provision for a gradual system of emancipation, by which the State should become eventually free.
These facts show that the Ordinance had no practical effect
upon slavery. Slavery existed under the Ordinance; and
since the Ordinance has been suspended by.the State governments, slavery has gradually disappeared under the operation
of laws adopted and executed by the people themselves. A
law passed by the national legislature to operate locally upon
a people not represented, will always remain a dead letter, if
it be in opposition to the wishes and interests of those who
are to be affected by it. 
"In regard to the effects of the Missouri Compromise on
the question of slavery,, I do not think that it had any practical effect on that question, one way or another: it neither
curtailed nor extended slavery one inch."
A GLANCE AT THE FUTURE.
"We  recognize the right of the South, in common with
our right, to emigrate to the Territories with their property,
41 
2  THE LIFE AND SPEECHES Ol
and there hold and enjoy it in subordination to the laws in
force there.  The senatcr from South Carolina desires such
an amendmnent to the Constitution as shall stipulate that in
all time to come, there shall be as many slaveholding States
in the Union as there are States without slaves. The adoption and execution of such a provision would be an impossibility. We have a vast territory which is filling up with an
industrious and enterprising population, large enough to
form seventeen new States, one-half of which we may expect
to see represented in this body during our day. Of these,
fotbur will be formed out of Oregon, five out of our late acquisition from Mexico, including the present State of California,
and two out of Minnesota. Each of these will be free Territories and free States, whether Congress shall prohibit slavery
in them or not. Where are you to find the slave territory
with which to balance these seventeen free Territories? In
Texas?  If Texas should be divided into five States, at least
three of them will in all probability be free."
*.    *        *      *       * 
ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA.
Mr. Douglas then,proceeded to advocate, at great length,
the immediate admission of the State of California under
her constitution; and concluded his speech by declaring that
"this nation owes to the venerable senator firom Kentucky
(Mr. Clay) a debt of gratitude for his services to the Union
on this occasion.   The purity of his motives cannot be
doubted. He has set the ball in motion which is to restore
peace and harmony to the Union."
THE OMNIBUS BILL.
On the 3d of June, 1850, Mr. Douglas spoke in favor of
the Omnibus Bill, and in the course of his remarks said: " In 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
respect to African slavery, the position that I have ever
taken has been, that this, and all other questions relating to
the domestic affairs and domestic policy of the Territories,
ought to be left to the decision of the people themselves. I
would therefore have much preferred that the bill should
have remained as it was reported from the Committee on Territories, with no provision on the subject of slavery; and I
do hope that that clause in the bill will be stricken out. It
ought not to be there, because it is a violation of principle.
I do not see how we who have argued in favor of the right
of the people to legislate for themselves on this question, can
support such a provision without abandoning all the arguments which we urged —in the Presidential campaign of 1848,
and the principles set forth by the senator from Michigan in
the Nicholson letter.
"And, sir, is an institution to be fixed upon a people in
opposition to their unanimous opinion? I, for one, think
that such ought not to be the case.  I desire no provision
whatever in respect to slavery in the Territories. I wish to
leave the people of the Territories free to enact such laws as
they please. But on this one point, I am not left to follow
my own judgment, nor my own desire. I am to express the
will of my constituents. My vote will be in accordance with
their instructions."
We give, in a subsequent part of this work, the Nicholson
letter referred to by Mr. Douglas, and commend it to the
perusal of our readers. It will amply repaythe time thus spent.
On the 6th of June, and also on the 26th, Mr. Douglas ad
dressed the Senate in support of the Compromise measures.
ABOLITIONISM IN CHICAGO.
The Compromise measures of 1850 having been adopted by
Congress, and that body having adjourned, Mr. Douglau
43
i 
44    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
proceeded to Chicago, where he had recently purchased( pro
perty, with a view of making that city his permanent resi
dence. It is a well known fact that Chicago has always been
the hot-bed of abolitionism, and a prominent station on the
Underground Railroad. There are many men there who
have never bowed the knee to the Baal of fanaticism and
treason, but the majority of the people have always been
abolitionists. These restless beings had been violently op posed to the Compromise measures, and they raised a storm
of execration and abuse against Mr. Douglas, because he had
been prominent in procuring their adoption.  The  excite ment was fierce and terrific.  A venal press, and pulpits dis graced by crazy fanatics, joined in the work of misrepresentation, abuse, and denunciation. The city council met, and
passed resolutions denouncing the Compromise and Fugitive
Slave Law as violations of the law of God and the Constitution of the United States; enjoined the city police to disregard the law, and called upon the citizens not to obey it.
On the next evening a meeting was held, composed of twentyfive hundred citizens, and in that meeting, in the midst of
terrific applause, it was determined to defy "death, the dun
geon, and the grave," in resistance to the execution of the
law. Mr. Douglas was then in Chicago: he knew that this
meeting was to take place; and he knew, from the character
of the men who composed it, what the nature of the resolutions would be. -He walked into the meeting, and from the
stand gave notice that on the next evening he would appear
there and defend every measure of the Compromise, and
especially the Fugitive Slave Law, from every objection: and
he called upon the entire people of the city to come and hear
him. The announcement was made in the midst of profound
silence, but was immediately followed by a storm of groans
and hisses. Mr. Douglas, however, calmly stood his ground
till the noise subsided, and then, addressing those who had 
STEPRHEN A. DOUGLAS.
hissed and groaned, told them that he was right and they
were wrong, and that if they would come and hear him he
would prove it to them.
MR. DOUGLAS SPEAKS IN CHICAGO.
On the next evening, in the presence of 4,000 people, with
tie city council and abolitionists in front of the stand, which
was surrounded in the rear by a large body of armed negroes,
including many fugitive slaves, Mr. Douglas made a speech
in which he vindicated the Compromise measures and the
Fugitive Slave Law, and proved that the latter was both neces
sary and constitutional; and he answered every objection
that had been urged against them. The objections relating
to the right of trial by jury, to the writ of habeas corpus, to
records from other States, to the fees of the commissioners, to
the pains and penalties, to the "higher law "-every objec
tion which the ingenuity and fanaticism of abolitionism could
invent, was brought up by different persons in the meeting,
and fully and conclusively answered by Mr. Douglas. What
was the effect of that speech upon that meeting, comprising
three-fourths of all the legal voters of the city of Chicago?
The people composing that meeting, a majority of whom had,
the night previously, pledged themselves to open and violent
resistance to the law, after the conclusion of the speech of
Mr. Douglas, unanimously adopted a series of resolutions in
favor of sustaining and carrying into effect every provision
of the Constitution and laws in respect to the surrender of
fugitive slaves. The resolutions were written, and submitted
to the meeting by Mr. Douglas, and cover the entire ground.
The city council having nullified the law and denounced
Mr. Douglas as a traitor, the Hon. Buckner S. Morris offered
the following resolution, which was also adopted: "Resolved,
That we, the people of Chicago, repudiate the resolutionsi
45 
t6      T H E LIFE AND g i E E C H E   OF
recently passed by the Common Council of Chicago upoii th.
subject of the Fugitive Slave Law."
EFFECT OF THE SPEECH.
On the follow ing evening, the city council met again, and
repealed their nullifying resolutions by a vote of twelve
to one.
This speech of Mr. Douglas was the first one ever made in
a free State in defence of the Fugitive Slave L w, and that
Chicago meeting was the first public assemblage in any free
State that determined to support and sustain it.  I a their own
stronghold, its sturdiest opponents had thus (encountered
their first check: the fanatical spirit was rebuk )d, and the
supremacy of the Constitution and laws asserted and maintained. - Such is the power of eloquence and tl e force of
truth, even in modern times.
In the Appendix to this work, will be foun I the two
documents referred to by Senator Douglas in hit speech of
the 13th and 14th of March, 1850; namely, the official dispatch of John C. Calhoun, secretary of state under John
Tyler, to the How. Wm. R. King, our ambassador to Paris:
and the Nicholson letter of Gen. Cass. The former is valuable
as a part of the history of the Tyler administrati)u, and as
showing their views on the subject of the annexation of
Texas.  It is a rare document, and as curious as s       te
paper in th i history of the country. 
STIPHEf A. DOU3LA8.
CHAPTER vm.
1851-1854.
Speech in favor of mating Gen. Winfield Scott a Lieutenant-General Speech on the Fugitive Slave Law-Speech on the Foreign Policy of the
United States-Retrospective View of the Course of Mr. Douglas in
Congress up to this Time (1852)-Mr. Douglas the real Author of the
Compromise Measures of 1850-Bill for the Organization of the Territo ries of Kansas and Nebraska-Mr. Douglas opposes the Oregon Treaty
with England-Opposes the Peace Treaty with Mexico-Speech on the
Clayton and Bulwer Treaty-Report on the Organization of Nebraska
and Kansas-The Nebraska Bill-Debate on it-The bill passed.
ON the 12th of February, 1851, Mr. Douglas spoke in favor
of conferring the rank of Lieutenant-General on General
Winfield Scott.  In the course of his remarks, he said, "I
would have preferred, however, to have seen this proposition
put in a shape which would have been more consistent with
the organization of the army, with reference to what may
occur in the future. I think that the highest grade in the
army of the United States should be always vacant in time
of peace, to be filled when war should occur, by a commission
to expire at the end of the war. I think that when a war
occurs, the President of the United States should be at
liberty to look through the whole line of the army, and
through the whole line of the citizen soldiery, to select a
commander-in chief to conduct that war. I would, therefore,
like to see the office of lieutenant-general created, to be
4
41 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
filled when a war arises, and to become vacant at its term.
eation."
SPEECH ON THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW.
On the 22d, in the debate on the execution of the Fugitive
Slave Law, shortly after the riot at Boston, Mr. Douglas said:
"The laws of Illinois have always discouraged negroes from
coming there. In regard to runaway slaves coming into the
State, we have a law imposing penalties at the discretion of
the court, upon any citizen of Illinois who would harbor a
runaway slave. It has l een my fortune, in the course of my
brief judicial experience, to impose severe penalties upon
citizens of Illinois for a violation of that law: it remains upon
the statute book at this day. The senator firom Ohio looks
upon this matter of the rescue of a fugitive at Boston, as a
trivial transaction. I do not. It is well known that there is
a systematic organization in many of the free States of this
UTnion, for the purpose of evading the obligations of the Constitution, and to prevent the enforcement of the laws of the
United States in relation to fugitive slaves. It has, at its
head, men of daring and of desperate purpose; and the opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law is a combined and concerted
action. It is in the nature of a conspiracy against the govern.
ment. I say, therefore, that these conspirators, be they in
Boston or in Illinois, are responsible for all that any of their
number may do in resistance to this law. Sir, I hold white
men now in my sight responsible for the violation of the law
at Boston. It was done under their advice, under their
teaching, under the influence of their speeches. The negroes
in the free States have been armed by the abolitionists during
the last six months, for the express purpose of violating the
Fugitive Slave Law. I have stood in a meeting of 2,000 men,
and heard white men tell the negroes to kill the first white 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
man who attempted to execute this law. I have seen the
weapons that have been prepared by white abolitionists, to
enable the negroes to resist. I trust the penalty will fall
upon the white abolitionists."
On the 26th of August, 1852, Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, made a most violent speech against the Fugitive Slave
Law, and in favor of its repeal.
Mr. Douglas said in reply: "The arguments against the
Fugitive Slave Law, are arguments against the Constitution
of our country. Gentlemen should pass over the law, and
make their assaults directly upon the Constitution of the
United States, in obedience to which the law was passed.
Let them proclaim to the world that they feel bound to make
violent resistance to the Constitution which our fathers have
transmitted to us. The Constitution provides that no man
shall be a senator unless he takes an oath to support the
Constitution. And when he takes that oath, I do not under.
stand that' he has a right to have a mental reservation, or
entertain any mental equivocation that he excepts that clause
which relates to the surrender of fugitives. I know not how
a man reconciles it to his conscience to take that oath to
support the Constitution, when he believes that Constitutioi
is in violation of the law of God. A man who thus believes,
and yet takes the oath,- commits perjury before God 4or the
sake of the temporary honors of a seat on this floor."
KOSSUTH.
On the 11th December, 1851, when the resolution giving,
a national welcome to Louis Kossuth, of Hungary, was pending before the Senate, Mr. Douglas said: "I regret that this
resolution has been introduced, not because I do not cordiallysympathize in the proposed reception, but because it cannot
pass unanimously. Its discussion and a divided vote deprive
49 
60      THE LIFE AND SPEECHtES OF
it of its chief merit. I do not deem it material whether tbe
reception of Gov. Kossuth will give offence to the crowned
heads of Europe, provided it does not violate the laws of
nations, and give just cause of offence. The question with
me is, whether the passage of this resolution gives just cause
of offence according to the laws of nations. I would take no
step which would violate the law of nations, or give just
cause of offence to any power on earth. Nor do I think that
a cordial welcome to Gov. Kossuth can be properly construed
into such cause of offence.  Shall it be said that democratic
America is not to be permitted to grant a hearty welcome to
an exile who has become the representative of liberal principles throughout the world, lest despotic Austria and Russia
shall be offended? I think that the bearing of this country
should be such as to demonstrate to all mankind that America
sympathizes with the popular movement against despotism.
The principle laid down by Gov. Kossuth as the basis of his
action, that each state has a right to dispose,of her own
destiny, and regulate her internal affairs in her own way, is
an axiom in the laws of nations which every state ought to
recognize and respect.  The armed intervention of Russia to
deprive Hungary of her constitutional rights, was such a
violation of the laws of nations as authorized England or the
United States to interfere and prevent the consummation of
the deed. To say in advance that the United States will not
interfere in vindication of the laws of nations, is to give our
consent that Russia may interfere to destroy the liberties of
an independent nation. I will make no such declaration.
On the other hand, I will not advise the declaration in advance that we will interfere. Something has been said about
our alliance with England. I desire no alliance with Eng.
land."
4-. 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
RKrROSPECTIVE VIEW.
Let us now take a brief retrospective view of tile Con.
gressional life of Mr. Douglas, up to this time.  The first
important vote he ever gave in the House of Representatives
was in favor of excluding abolition petitions, and his vote
stands so recorded.  His action, ever since Ite had been a
member of the Senate, had been governed by the same prin ciple. Wlhen the slavery agitation had been forced upon
C,,)iiress, hle met it fairly, directly and fearlessly, and
endeavored to apply the proper remedy.  When the stormy
agitation arose in connection with the annexation of Texas,
he originated and first brought forward the Missouri Compromise as applicable to that territory, and had the gratification to see it incorporated in the bill which annexed Texas to
the United States. He did not deem this a matter of much
moment as applicable to Texas alone; but he did conceive Jt
to be of vast importance in view of the probable acquisition
of New Mexico and California.  His preference for the Missouri Compromise was predicated on the assumption that the
whole people of the United States would be more easily
reconciled to that measure than to any other mode of adjustment; and this assumption rested upon the fact that the
Missouri Compromise had been the means of an amicable
settlement of a fearful controversy in 1821, which had been
acquiesced in cheerfully by the people for more than a
quarter of a century, and which all parties and sections of
the Union respected and cherished as a fair, just and bonorable adjustment.
COURSE OF MR. DOUGLAS IN CONGRESS.
Mr. Douglas could see no reason for the application of the
Missouri line to all the territory owned by the United( Sta4*
51 
52     THE LIFE AND SPEEUHES OF
in 1821, that would not apply with equal force to its exten
sion to the Rio Grande, and also to the Pacific. as soon as a
should acquire the country. In accordance with these views,
he brought forward the Missouri Compromise-at the session
of 1845 as applicable to Texas, and had the satisfaction to
see it adopted. Subsequently, after the war with Mexico
had commenced, and when, in August, 1846, Mir. Wilmot
first introduced his proviso, Mr. Douglas proposed to extend
the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific, as a substitute for
the Wilmot Proviso. The Wilmot Proviso not only designed
to prohibit slavery in the territories while they remained territories, but proposed to insert a stipulation in the treaty
with Mexico, pledging the faith of the nation that slavery
should never exist in the country acquired, either while it
remained a territory, or after it should have been admitted
into the lunion as States. Mr. Douglas denounced this proviso as being unwise, improper, and unconstitutional: he
never voted for it, and more than once declared that he
never would vote for it. When California and New Mexico
had been acquired without any condition or stipulation in
respect to slavery, the Wilmot Proviso was disposed of for
ever.
At the time that the question began to be discussed, what
kind of territorial governments should be established for
those countries, a severe domestic affliction called Mr. Doug.
las from Washington, and detained him several weeks.  On
his return to the Senate he supported the Clayton bill,
which passed the Senate, but was defeated in the House of
Representatives. Mr. Douglas then brought forward his
original proposition, to extend the Missouri Compromise to
the Pacific, in the same sense and with the same understand.
iig with which it was originally adopted. This proposition
passed the Senate by a large majority, but was rejected, as
wve have seen, by the House of Representatives.  MIr. Doug 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
las then conceived the idea of a bill to admit California as a
State, leaving the people to form a constitution, and to
settle the question of slavery afterward to suit themselves.
This bill was introduced by Mr. Douglas with the- sanction
of President Polk. It recognized the right of the people
of California to determine all questions relating to their
domestic concerns in their own way; but the Senate refused
to pass the bill. All this took place before the Compromise
measures of Mr. Clay were brought forward. During the
period of five years that Mr. Douglas had been laboring for
the adoption of the Missouri Compromise, his votes on the
Oregon question, and upon all questions touching slavery,
were given with reference to a settlement on that basis, and
were consistent with it.
MR. DOUGLAS THE AUTHOR OF THE COMPROMISE OF 1850.
When  Congress met, in December, 1849, Mr. Douglas
was again placed by the Senate at the head of the Committee on Territories, and it became his duty to prepare
and submit some  plan for the settlement of those momentous questions, the agitation of which had convulsed
the whole nation. Early in December, within the first
two or three weeks of the session, he wrote and laid
before the Committee on Territories, for their examination, two bills: one for the admission of California into the
Union, and the other containing three distinct measures;
first, for the establishment of a territorial government for
Utah; second, for the establishment of a territorial governmnent for New Mexico; and third, for the settlement of the
Texas boundary. These bills remained before the'Committee
on Territories from the month of December, 1849, to the 25th
of March, 1850.  On that day Mr. Douglas reported the bils,
and they were, on his motion, ordered to be printed. Thesm
53 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
printed bills having laid on the tables of all the senators fof
four weeks, the Senate appointed a committee of thirteen,
Henry Clay, of Kentucky, chairman. That committee took
the two printed bills of Mr. Douglas, pasted them together,
and reported them to the Senate as one bill, which was
thenceforth known as the Omnibus Bill. Mr. Douglas made
this statement to the Senate on the 23d of December, 1851,
while the original Omnibus Bill was yet upon the clerk's
table. The Committee of Thirteen had drawn a black line
through the words, "2 r. Dougylas, from the Committee on
Territories," and in place of them, interlined these other
words, "'Mr. Clay, from the Committee of Thirteen,
reported the following bill."
The report of the committee will be found in a subsequent
part of this work.
Mr. Douglas supported the Omnibus Bill as a joint mea.
usate; but the Senate refused to pass the measures together.
Each one, however, was passed separately; and each one
was supported by Mr. Douglas. Well might Mr. Polk
remark in the House of Representatives, in April, 1852, after
speaking of the eminent services of Mr. Douglas: "History
will cherish the record of such fearless and faithful service,
and administer the proper rebuke to those who from malice
or envy may seek to detract from his fair fame."
We givethe material features of these-bills as they were
passed, as a part of the history of the times, in the
Appendix.
THE RIGHT OF INSTRUCTION.
On the 23d of December, 1851, Mr. Douglas made  a
speech in the Senate, on the resolutions declaring the Compromise measures of 1850 to be a definitive and final settle.
ment of all the questions growing out of the subject ol
.54 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 
domestic slavery, in the course of which he took a brief
review of the votes he had given since the introduction of
the Compromise measures, and showed that he had supported
them all. In this speech he said:
MR. PRESIDENT: I claim no merit for having originated and proposed the
measures contained in the Omnibus Bill. There was no remarkable feature
about them. They were merely ordinary measures of legislation, well
adapted to the circumstances, and their merit consisted in the fact
that separately they could and did pass both Houses of Congress. Being
responsible for these bills, as they came from the hands of the Committee
on Territories, I wish to call attention to the fact that they contained no
prohibition of slavery-no provision upon the subject. And now I come
to the point which explains my object in stating my votes. The legislature
of Illinois had passed a resolution instructing me to vote for a bill for the
government of the territory acquired from Mexico, which should contain
an express prohibition of slavery in that territory while it remained as
territories, leaving the people to do as they pleased when they became a
State. The instruction was designed in order to compel me to resign my
seat and give place to a Freesoiler. The legislature knew my inflexible
opposition to the principles asserted in the instructions, and wished me to
give place to a Freesoiler, who would come here and carry out abolition
doctrines. Notwithstanding these instructions, I wrote the bills and reported them from the Committee on Territories without the prohibition, in
order that the record might show what my opinions were; but, lest the
trick against me might fail, a Freesoil senator offered an amendment in
the language of my instructions. I knew that the amendment could not
prevail, even if the vote of Illinois was recorded in its favor. But if I
resigned my place to an abolitionist, it was almost certain that the bills
would fail on their passage. I came to the conclusion that duty required
me to retain my seat. I was prepared to fight and defy abolitionism in all
its forms, but I was not willing to repudiate the settled doctrine of my
State, in regard to the right of instruction. Before the vote was taken, I
defined my position. I denounced the doctrine of the amendment, declared
my unalterable opposition to it, and gave notice that any vote which might
be recorded in my name seemingly in its favor, would bethe vote o0 those
who gave the instructions, and not my own.  Under t)is proies,, *  ie-orded a vote for this and two other amendments embracing 1the same
principle, and then renewed my protest against them, and gave notice that
J should not hold myself responsible for them;  Immediately in my return
55 
6   TLE LIFE AND  SPEECHES OF
home, and in a speech to my constituents, I renewed my protest against
these votes, and repeated the notice to that infuriated meeting, that they were
their votes, and not mine.  In that speech at Chicago, I said of the territo.
rial bills:' These measures are predicated on the great fundamental principle that every people ought to possess the right of forming and regulating
their own internal concerns and domestic institutions in their own way.
If those who emigrate to the territories have the requisite intelligence and
honesty to enact laws for the government of white men, I know of no
reason why they should not be deemed competent to legislate for the
negro. If they are sufficiently enlightened to make laws for the protee.
tion of life, liberty, and property, of morals and education, to determine
the relation of husband and wife, of parent and child, I am  not aware
that it requires any higher degree of civilization to regulate the affairs of
master and servant. My votes and acts have been in accordance with
these views in all cases, except in the instances in which I voted under
your instructions. Those were your votes and not mine. I entered my
protest against them at the time, before and after they were recorded, and
shall never hold myself responsible for them.' I made a good many
speeches of the same tenor, the last of which was at the capital of Illinois.
A few weeks afterward the legislature of Illinois assembled, and one of
their first acts was to repeal the resolution of instructions to which I have
referred, and to pass resolutions approving of the course of my colleague,
General Shields, and myself, on the Compromise measures. From that day
Illinois has stood firm and unwavering in support of the Compromise
measures, and of all the compromises of the Constitution.
Mr. President, if I have said anything that savors of egotism, the
Senate will pardon me. If I had omitted all that was personal to myself,
my defence would have been incomplete. I am willing to be held responsible for all my acts, but I wish to be judged by my acts, and not by malicious misrepresentations. I may have committed errors; but when I am
convinced of them, I will acknowledge them like a man, and promptly
correct them. The Democratic party is as good a Union party as I want,
and I want to preserve its principles and its organization, and to triumph
upon its old issues. I desire no new tests, no interpolations upon the' i
creed."
ID December 1853, Mr. Douglas reported the bill to organ.
ize the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, which formed
the issues upon which the Democratic and Republican parties
oecame arrayed against each other. He opposed thF treaty 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
with England in relation to the Oregon boundary, coral f,ing
that England had no rights on that coast.  He opposed the
Trist peace treaty with Mexico upon the ground that the boun.
daiies were unnatural and inconvenient, and that the provisions in relation to the Indians could never be executed. The
United. States government has since paid Mexico ten millions
of dollars to change the boundaries, and to relinquish the
stipulations in regard to the Indians. Hie opposed the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, because it pledged the United States
in all time to come, never to annex Central America. He
declared that he did not desire to annex Central America at
that time, but maintained that the isthmus routes must be
kept open as highways to the American possessions on the
Pacific; that the titne would come when the United States
would be compelled to occupy Central America, and that he
would never pledge the faith of the republic not to do in the
future what its interests and safety might require. lIe also
declared himself in favor of the acquisition of Cuba, whenever
that island can be obtained consistently with the laws of
nations and the honor of the United States.  We give this
speech entire in a subsequent part of this work.
On the 4th of January 1854, Senator Douglas made the
following Report relative to the organization of the Territo
ries of Nebraska and' Kansas:
The Committee on Territories, to whom was referred a bill for an act to estate
lish the Territories of Nebraska, have given the same that serious and
deliberate consideration which its great importance demands, and beg leave
to report it back to the Senate, with various amendments, in the fc,m o]
a substitute for the bill:
The principal amendments which your committee deem it their duty to
commend to the favorable action of the Senate, in a special report, are
those in which the principles established by the Compromise measures of
1850, so far as they are applicable to territorial organizations, are proposed
to be affirmed and carried into practical operation within the limits of the
new Territory.
61 
58      THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
The wisdom of those measures is attested, not less by their 3alutary
and beneficial effects, in allaying sectional agitation and restoring peace
and harmony to an irritated and distracted people, than by the cordial ana
almost universal approbation with which they have been received and
sanctioned by the whole country.  In the judg-ment of your Committee,
those measures were intended to have a far more comprehensive and endur ing effect than the mere adjustment of difficulties arising out of the recent
acquisition of Mexican territory. They were designed to establish certain
great principles, which would not only furnish adequate remedies for
existing evils, but, in all time to come, avoid the perils of similar agitation,
.y withdrawing the question of Slavery from the halls of Congress and
the political arena, committing it to the arbitration of those who were
immediately interested in, and alone responsible for, its consequences.
With a view of conforming their action to what they regard as the settled
policy of the government, sanctioned by the approving voice of the
American people, your Committee have deemed it their duty to incorporate
and perpetuate, in their Territorial Bill, the principles and spirit of those
measures. If any other consideration were necessary to render the propriety of this course imperative upon the Committee, they may be found
in the fact that the Nebraska country occupies the same relative position
to the slavery question, as did New Mexico and Utah, when those Territories were organized.
It was a disputed point, whether slavery was prohibited by law in the
country acquired fromnt Mexico. On the one hand, it was contended, as a
legal proposition, that slavery, having been prohibited by the enactment
of Mexico, according to the laws of nations, we received the country with
all its local laws and domestic institutions attached to the soil, so far as
they did not conflict with the Constitution of the United States; and that
a law either protecting or prohibiting slavery, was not repugnant to that
instrument, as was evidenced by the fact that one-half of the States of the
Union tolerated, while the other half prohibited, the institution of slavery.
On the other hand, it was insisted that, by virtue of the Constitution of the
United States, every citizen had a right to remove to any Territory of the
Union, and carry his property with him under the protection of law, whether that property consisted of persons or things. The difficulties arising
from this diversity of opinion, were greatly aggravated by the fact that
there were many persons on both sides of the legal controversy, who were
unwilling to abide the decision of the courts on the legal matters in dispute; thus, among those who claimed that the Mexican laws were still in
force, and, consequently, that slavery was already prohibited in those Territ)ries by val'd enactment, there were many who insisted  lpon Congress
I 
STEPBEN A. DOUGLAS.
making the matter certain, by enacting another prohibition.  In like man.
ner, some of those who argued that Mexican law had ceased to have any
binding force, and that the Constitution tolerated and protected slave property in those Territories, were unwilling to trust the decision of the courts
upon the point, and insisted that Congress should, by direct enactment,
remove all legal obstacles to the introduction of slaves into those Territories.
Such being the character of the controversy in respect to the territory
aequired from Mexico, a similar question has arisen in regard to the right
to hold slaves in the Territory of Nebraska, when the Indian 4laws shall be
withdrawn, and the country thrown open to emigration and settlement.
By the 8th section of "an act to authorize the people of Missouri Territory
to form a constitution and State government, and for the admission of
such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and
to prohibit slavery in certain Territories," approved March 6th, 1820, it
was provided; "That in all that territory ceded by France to the United
States under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of 36 degrees 30
minutes north latitude, not included within the limits of the State contem.
plated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the
punishment of crimes whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted,
shall be, and are hereby, prohibited: Provided always, That any person
escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in
any State or Territory of the United States, such fugitive may be lawfully
reclaimed, and conveyed to the persons claiming his or her labor or services
as aforesaid."
Under this section, as in the case of the Mexican law in New Mexico
and Utah, it is a disputed point whether slavery is prohibited in the
Nebraska country by valid enactment. The decision of this question
involves the constitutional power of Congress to pass laws prescribing and
regulating the domestic institutions of the various Territories of the Union.
In the opinion of those eminent statesmen who hold that Congress is
invested with no rightful authority to legislate upon the subject of slavery
in the Territories, the 8th section of the act preparatory to the admission
of Missouri is null and void; while the prevailing sentiment in large portions of the Union sustains the doctrine that the Constitution of the United
States secures to every citizen an inalienable right to move into any of the
Territories with his property, of whatever kind and description, and to
hold and enjoy the same under the sanction of law.  Your Committee do
not feel themselves called upon to enter upon the discussion of these con
troverted questions. They involve the same grave issues which produced
%he agitation, the sectional strifo, and the fearfidl struggle of 1850.  Al
59 
60     THE LIFE AND SPEECIHES OF
Congress deemed it wise and prudent to refrain from deciding the matters
41 controversy then, either by affirming or repealing the Mexican laws, or
an act declaratory of the true intent of the Constitution, and the extent
sf the protection afforded by it to slave property in the Territories, so
*our Committee are not prepared to recommend a departure from the course
pursued on that memorable occasion, either by affirming  or repealing the
8th section of the Missouri act, or by any act declaratory of the meaning
of the Constitution in respect to the legal points in dispute.
Your Committee deem it fortunate for the peaceof the country, and the
security of the Union, that the controversy then resulted in the adoption
of the Compromise measures, which the two great political parties, with
singular unanimity, have affirmed as a cardinal article of their faith, and
proclaimed to the world as a final settlement of the controversy and an
end to the agitation. A due respect, therefore, for the avowed opinions
of senators, as well as a proper sense of patriotic duty, enjoins upon your
Committee the propriety and necessity of a strict adherence to the principles, and even a literal adoption of the enactments of that adjustment, in
all their territorial bills, so far as the same are not locally inapplicable.
Those enactments embrace, among other things less material to the matters under consideration, the following provisions:
When admitted as a State, the said Territory, or any portion of the same,
shall be received into the Union, with or without Slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission;
That the legislative power and authority of said Territory shall be vested
in the Governor and a Legislative Assembly;
That the legislative power of said Territory shall extend to all rightful
subjects of legislation, consistent with the Constitution of the United
States, and the provisions of this act; but no law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposal of the soil; no tax shall be imposed upon
the property of the United States; nor shall the lands or other property
of non-residents be taxed higher than the lands or other property of
residents.
Writs of error and appeals from the final decisions of said Supreme Court
shall be allowed, and may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United
States in the same manner and under the same regulations as from the Circuit Courts of the United States, where the value of the property or amount
in controversy, to be ascertained by the oath or affirmation of either party,
or other competent witness, shall exceed one thousand dollars; except oJIly
that,:n all cases involving title to slaves, the said writs of error or appeals
shall be allowed and decided by the said Supreme Court, without regard to
the value of the matter, property, or title in controversy; and except, also 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
that a writ of error or appeal shall also be allowed to the Supreme Court of
the United States from the decision of the said Supreme Court by this act,
gr of any judge thereof, or of the district courts created by this act, or of
mny judge thereof, upon any writ of habeas corpus involving the question
of personal freedom; and each of the said district courts shall have and
exercise the same jurisdiction, in all cases arising under the Constitution
and laws of the United States, as is vested in the circuit and district courts
of the United States; and-the said supreme and district courts of the said
territory, and the respective judges thereof, shall and may grant writs of
habeas corpus, in all cases in which the same are granted by the judges of
the United States in the District of Columbia.
To which may be added the following proposition affirmed by the act of
1850, and known as the Fugitive Slave Law.
That the provisions of the "act respecting fugitives from justice, and
persons escaping from the service of their masters," approved February 12,
1793, and the provisions of the act to amend and supplementary to the
aforesaid act, approved September 18, 1850, shall extend to, and be in force
in, all the organized Territories, as well as in the various States of the
Union.
From these provisions it is apparent that the Compromise measures of
1850 affirm, and rest upon, the following propositions:
First: That all questions pertaining to Slavery in the Territories, and the
new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the
people residing therein, by their appropriate representatives, to be chosen
tby them for that purpose.
Second: That "all cases involving title to slaves," and "questions of
personal freedom," are to be referred to the adjudication of the local tribunals, with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United Statee.
Third: That the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, in
respect to fugitives from service, is to be carried into faithful execution in
all "the original Territories," the same as in the States.
The substitute for the bill which your Committee have prepared, and
which is commended to the favorable action of the Senate, proposes to
carry these propositions and principles into practical operation, in the pre.
cise language of the Compromise measures of 1850.
The bill thus reported was considered in Conimittee of the
Whole, and then made the special order for the following
Monday. The debate was continued Jan. 31st, Feb. Ad, 5th,
Lni oth.
61 
62     THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
On the 23d of January, Mr. Douglas, from the Comnmittee 
on Territories, reported a substitute for the (original bill, in
nearly the same terms, in which, after defining the limits of
the territory, it was proposed to constitute it a Territory, to
be afterward admitted as a State, with or without slavery, as
their constitution may prescribe at the timne of their admission. It was declared to be the true intent and meaning of
the act to carry into practical operation the principles of the
Compromise measures of 1850, to wit, That all questions
pertaining to slavery in the Territories, and in the new States
to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the
people residing therein; and that the provisions of the Constitution and laws of the United States, in respect to fugitives
from service, are to be carried into faithful execution in all
the organized Territories.  To the words "the Constitution
and all laws of the United States not locally inapplicable,
shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory
as elsewhere in the United States," the substitute proposed
to add these words: "Except the 8th section of the Act for
the admission of M1issouri into the Union, approved March
6, 1820, which was superseded by the Compromnise measures
of 1850, and is declared inoperative.'
DEBATE ON THE NEBRASKA biLL.
On the 30th of January, Mr. Douglas made his first speech
m favor of the Nebraska Bill. We give the speech in a subsequent part of this work.
On the 15th of February, Mr. Dou,glas moved to strike
out of his substitute the assertion that the Missouri restric.
tion "was superseded by the Compromise measures of 1850,"
and insert instead the following:
': Which, being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by
Congress with Slavery in the States and Territories, as recognized by the 
WTEPIHEN A. DOUGLAS.
legislation of 1850 (commonly called the Compromise measures), is hereby
declared inoperative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of
this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude
it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and
regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the
Constitution of the United States,"
which prevailed-yeas 35, nays 10-as follows:
YEAS-for Douglas' Amendtnent:  Messrs. Adams,  Atchison, Bayard,
Bell, Benjamin, Brodhead, Brown, Butler, Cass, Clayton, Dawson, Dixon,
Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Gwin, Hunter, JohnBon, Jones of Iowa, Jones of Tenn, Mason, Morton, Norris, Pierce, Pettit,
Pratt, Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Thompson of Ky. Toombs, Wellei'
Williams-35. 
NAYs-against the Amendment: Messrs. Allen, Chase, Dodge of Wise.,
Everett, Fish, Foote, Houston, Seward, Sumnecr, Wade-10
The vote on this amendment is significant, and we invite
to it the attention of the reader. Here we have the emphatic declaration of every Democratic senator, especially of
every Democratic senator from the slave States, in favor of
the great peace measure of non-intervention with slavery in
the States and Territories, avowing "the true intent and
meaning of this act to be, not to legislate slavery into any
Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave
the people thereof free to form and regulate their domestic
institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution
of the United States."  How this doctrine, deemed sound,
then, contrasts with the late shibboleth of the Senate caucus,
that if the people of a Territory want slxtvery, Congress
shall not interfere, but if they do not want it, Congress is to
legislate it on them.
Mr. Badger of N. C. moved to add to the aforesaid sec.
tion:
" Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive
5
63 
61     T[HE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the
to the act of 6th of March, 1820, eithei protecting, establishing, prohibit
ing, or abolishing Slavery."
Carried-yeas 35, nays 6.
It had been charged by Edmund Burke, of New Ilampshire, and other Abolition enemies of the measure at the
north, that thbe repeal of the restriction would revive slavery
in Kansas and Nebraska, by putting in force the old French
laws.  The object of Mr. Badger wa's to set this slander at
rest. Every Southern Democrat voted for the proviso.
The question on the engrossment- of the bill was now
reached, and it was carried —yeas 29, nays 12-as follows:
YEAS-To engross  the bill for its third reading:  MEssRs.  Adams,
Atchison  Badger, Benjamin, Brodhead,  Brown, Butler, Clay, Dawvson,
Dixon, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Gwin, Hunter, Johnson, Jones of Iowa, Jones of Tenn., Mason, Morton, Norris, Pettit, Pratt,
Sebastian, Shields, Slidell, Stuart, Williams-29.
NAYs-against the  eng-rossment:  Messrs.  Chase, Dodge  of  Wisc.,
Fessenden, Fish, Foot, Hamlin, James, Seward, Smith, Sumner, Wade,
Walker-12.
On the night of the 3d of March, 1854, Mr. Douglas
closed the debate in a speech of great eloquence and ability.
The attention of the reader is particularly directed to those
passages in which Mr. Douglas speaks of the necessity for
the organization of these Territories; and to his elucidation
of what had generally been called the Missouri Compromise,
in which he proves that Missouri was not admitted into the
Union under the Missouri restriction, the Act of 1820, but
under Mr. Clay's compromise, or joint resolution, of Mfarch
2, 1821; and also to the broad nationality of the views of the
whole speech.  We give it entire in a subsequent part of the
work. 
eTEPHEN A. DOUGLAS,
The vote was then taken, and the bill passed-yeas 37,
nays 14. So the bill was passed, and its title declared to be
"An Act to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas." The bill being approved by the President, became a
law. We give it entire, in a subsequent part of this work. -
65
4 
6       T?Ir LI E AND SPBE,BHcgE  OW
CHAPTER IX.
MR. DOUGLAS A' CHICAGO, 1854
IT is difficult to give a full idea of the excitement that pre.
vailed at Chicago, at the time of the-passage of the Nebraska
bill. It far surpassed the excitement in 1850, relative to the
Compromise measures. The ranks of the Abolitionists,
always full there, had been largely recruited during the
last three years: and among the new converts were many
professed minister of the Gospel. These men eagerly seized
on any pretext that would give them a little notoriety, and as
the public mind, that is to say, the Abolition sentiment in
Chicago, Was already worked up to a high pitch, they conceived the idea of treating Senator Douglas as a delinquent
schoolboy.  Accordingly, they addressed to him, and published in the Chicago daily papers at the same time, a most
scurrilous and abusive letter, in which they impiously arrogated to themselves the authority to speak "in the name of
Almighty God," and soundly berated Mr. Douglas for his
course in the Senate. With admirable temper, Mr. Douglaa
wrote them a letter, which will be found in a subsequent part
of this work.
In the autumn of 1854, Mr. Douglas returned to Chicago.
The city was convulsed with excitement.   The  Nebraska
Bill, and its author, were denounced in the most bitter and
violent manner. Neither were understood. The opposition
organs, the "Tribune," the " Journal," and the " Press," had 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
for months teemed with articles written in the most savage
style, ill which the Nebraska Bill and its provisions had been
studiously misrepresented and misquoted, and Mr. Douglas
vilified and abused as the author of countless woes to genera.
tions yet unborn. It is no compliment to the intelligence of
the readers and supporters of these papers to state what is,
nevertheless, the fact, that these statements were swallowed
with eager credulity, and that Mr. Douglas was regarded by
the Abolitionists as a monster in human form.
In a few days after his arrival in Chicago, Mr. Douglas
caused the announcement to be made that he would address
the citizens in vindication of the Nebraska Bill. A meeting
was accordingly appointed, to take place at North Market
Hall.  At the hour of meeting, the vast space in front of the
Hall was filled with men, the crowd numbering nearly ten
thousand persons. Probably one-third of the number were
really desirous to hear the sntor's speech; but by far the
greater part of the crowd were violent and radical Abolition
ists, who were determined that he should not speak.
HIS SPEECH THERE.
Mr. Douglas appeared before the meeting, on an open balcony, and commenced his address.  He alluded to the excite.
ment that prevailed, but asked a patient hearing, and pros
mised his audit( i to be as brief as he could be, consistently
with a full exposition of the subject.  He spoke of the sacred
rights of the people of the Territories to form and regulate
their domestic institutions in their own way; the great principle that lay at the foundation of the Nebraska Bill. At this
part of his remarks, several prominent Abolitionists com
menced to groan and hiss.  Others followed the example
The noise and tumult increased.
The senator stopped speaking, and stood calmly, with luh
67 
68     THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OP
arms folded upon his breast, and his eye surveying the angry
and excited multitude. He waited patiently till the noise sub.
sided, and then, stretching forth his hand, he proceeded. He
described the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, and alluded
to the fact that for the last ten years, he had endeavored, at
every session of Congress, to have them organized. Here
the groans and hisses were redoubled 1a violence, and came
from all parts of the meeting.  The most opprobrious epi.
thets were applied to Mr. Douglas, and the most insulting
language used to him by rowdies in the crowd. In vain several gentlemen endeavored to restore order. The Abolitionists were determined that Mr. Douglas should not be
heard; and they succeeded. For nearly four hours after this
did Mr. Douglas essay to make himself heard; and each time
did the yells and hootings of the infuriated multitude drown
his voice. At last, it being Saturday night, he deliberately
pulled out his watch under the gaslight, and observing that
it was after twelve o'clock, he said in a stentorian voice,
,which was heard above the din of the crowd: "Abolitionists
of Chicago! it is now Sunday morning. I will go to church,
while you go to the devil in your own way."
A -SCEONE FOR A PAI R.
In her whole history, Chicago has never witnessed so ais.
graceful a scene as this. There was a parallel occurrence in
the life of Rienzi, the last of the Roman Tribunes, thus
described by the great English novelist:
"On they came, no longer in measured order, as stream after streamfrom lane, from alley, from palace, and from hovel-the raging sea received
new additions.  On they came-their passions excited by their numberswomen and men, children and malignant age-in all the awful array of
aroused, released, unresisted physical strength and brutal wrath:'Death
tothe traitor-death to the tyrant-death to him who has taxed the peo 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
ple!'' Mora'1 traditore che ha fatta la gabella!-Mora!'  Such was the
cry of the people-such the crime of the senator I They broke over the
low palisades of the capitol-they filled with one sudden rush the vast
space-a moment before so desolate-now swarming with human beings
athirst for blood!
"Suddenly came a dead silence, and on the balcony above stood Rienzi
-his face was bared, and the morning sun shone over that lordly brow,
and the hair grown grey before its time, in service of that maddening mul
titude.  Pale and erect he stood-neither fear, nor anger, nor menacebut deep grief and high resolve upon his features I A momentary shame
-a momentary awe, seized the crowd.
"He pointed to the gonfalon, wrought with the republican motto and
arms of Rome, and thus he began:
"  I too am a Roman and a citizen; hear me!'
"' Hear him not; hear him not! his false tongue can charm away our
senses!' cried a voice louder than his own; and Rienzi recognized Cecco
del Vecchio.
"'Hear him not; down with the tyrant!' cried a more shrill and youth.
ful tone; and by the side of the artisan stood Angelo Villani.
"' Hear him not; death to the death-giver!' cried a voice close at hand,
and from the grating of the neighboring prison glared near upon him, as
the eye of a tiger, the vengeful gaze of the brother of Montreal.
"Then from earth to Heaven rose the roar-' Down with the tyrant
down with him who taxed the people!'
"A shower of stones rattled on the mail of the senator-still he stirred
not. No changing muscle betokened fear. His persuasion of his own
wonderful powers of eloquence, if he could but be heard, inspired him yet
with hope. He stood collected in his own indignant but determined
thoughts; but the knowledge of that very eloquence was now his deadliest
foe.  The leaders of the multitude trembled lest he should be heard;
' aTd doubtless,' says the contemporaneous biographer,'had he but sp,ke*
he would have changed them aU."'
Thus it was at the meeting at the North Market Hall.
rhe leaders of the multitude trembled lest Douglas sho Ad A
heard; they remembered the effect of his eloquence in 155
and they knew that if he was permitted to speak n(; w he
.ould and would convince the citizens of Chicago, f(t the
second time, that he was right and they were wrong.
69 
70'TIE LIFE AND SPEECHES Of
SPEECH Al THE TREMONT HOUSE.
After the close of the canvass of that year, in wvhich ][r.
Douglas had addressed the people jn every portion of Illinois,
he returned to Chicago, and on the 19th of November, two
hundred and fifty gentlemen of that city, personal and pot
litical friends of Senator Douglas, tendered him the compliment of a public dinner at the Tremont House.  After the
repast, and in response to a toast in compliment to the " distinguished guest, the originator and successful advocate of
the Illinois Central Railroad, and the champion of State
Rights and Constitutional Liberty," Mr. Douglas made the
speech which we give in a subsequent part of this work.
In this speech, Mr. Douglas takes up and critically examines the Nebraska Bill, and proves the soundness of the
principles on which it is founded: he fastens upon the House
of Representatives in 1848 the responsibility for all the subsequent slavery agitation, by their rejection of the Missouri
Compromise line, after it had passed the Senate: he proves
that the Abolitionists and Freesoilers, by supporting Van
Buren, pledged themselves to blot out the Missouri Compromise line: he calls to the recollection of his hearers the fact,
that he was abused and vilified in the year 1848, and called
"Stephen A. Douglas the solitary exception," meaning that he
was the only northern member of Congress who was in favor
of adhering to the Missouri Compromise line; and the other
fact, that the same Abolitionists and Freesoilers now pretend
to support a measure which they then declared infamous.
Hte graphically describes the manner in which the Compromise measures of 1850 were formed; and then, passing again
to the Nebraska Bill, he shows that its great principle was
to guarantee to the people of all the new Territories the right
(which the Constitution of the United States had already 
STEPHEN A. DOUGI AS.
secured, but which the Missouri Compromise had taken
away) of determining the question of slavery for themselves.
He proves, by the unequivocal testimony of the oldest and
wisest patriots of the country, that the Abolitionists have
proved to be the very worst enemies ofthe slaves, have riveted
stronger their chains, taken away some of the privileges
which they had before enjoyed, and actually put a stop to
their owners emancipating them.
THE " REPUBLICAN " PARTY ANALYZED.
The last part of the speech is a complete and searching ex.
position of the platform and principles of the new "Republican party" which had just been formed.  He proves it to
be  purely an  abolition party, the  principles  of which
were entirely sectional, arraying the North against the South,
and which, of course, could never be a national party. We
give this speech entire in a subsequent part of this work.
71
0 
72     THE LIFE AND 8PEEOHBS OV
CHIIAPTER X.
TERRITORIAL POLICY OF MR. DOUGLAS, 1856.
Report of Mr. Douglas on the Territorial Policy of the Governmcnt Speech in Reply to Trumbull, and in Support of the Bill authorizing the
People of Kansas to form a Constitution and State Government-Speech
in Reply to Mr. Collamer-The Bill passed by the Senate-Report of
Mr. Douglas on the House Bill.
AFFAIRS IN KANSAS.
THEs 34th Congress met on the first Monday in December,
1855, but the House of Representatives was unable to
organize or to choose a Speaker for nine weeks. On the
31st of December, President Pierce transmitted his Annual Message to Congress, in which he only slightly alluded
to the recent troubles in Kansas. On the 24th of January,
however, he sent a special message to Congress in regard to
the affairs in Kansas, which will be found in a subsequent
part of this work.
On the 12th of March, 1856, Mr. Douglas made his great
report on the affairs of Kansas Territory. In this report, he
elucidates the constitutional principles under which new
States may be admitted, and Territories organized. He ex
'oses the designs of the Massachusetts Emiigrant Aid Soci
ety; traces from their inception the treasonable acts of thai
secret military organization, the  "Kansas Legion;" and
. 
STEPHEN., A. DOUGLAS.
proves that all the troubles in Kansas originated in attempts
to violate or circumvent the principles and provisions of the
Nebraska Bill. This report will be found in a subsequent
part of this work.
Mir. Jacob Collamer, of Vermont, who constituted the
minority of the committee, made a minority report on the
same day.
TRUMBULL'S SPEECH.
Two days afterward, on the 14th of March, Mr. Lymanii
Trumbull, who had taken his seat a few days before, as a
senator from Illinois, in the place of General Shields, addressed the Senate in opposition to the views expressed in
the report of Mr. Douglas. Mr. Douglas was absent from
the Senate chamber at the time, but notwithstanding his
knowledge of this fact, Mr. Trumbull was offensively personal  It might have been supposed that in making his first
speech in the Senate, Mr. Trumbull would have had some
regard to common decency and propriety.  But in point of
fact, he was so violent and coarse in his invective as to disgust the whole body of senators. As soon as the rules of the
Senate would permit, he was stopped by Mr. Weller of California, who called for the special order of the day, which was
the bill to increase the efficiency of the army. But as this
was his first speech, he had the effrontery to insist upon continuing his rigmarole of abuse, and did go on till nearly 4
o'clock. Shortly before that time, Mr. Douglas entered the
Senate chamber, and when Mr. Trurmbuill had exhausted the
-ials of his wrath, and sat down, Mr. Douglas said:
Mr. President, I was very much surprised when it was communicated to me this afternoon that my colleague was making a speech
on the Kansas question, in which he was arraigning my own conduct
and the statements and principles set forth in the report which I had
the honor to submit to the Senate, two days since from the Ogmiaittee
on Territories.
73
I
i 
74       T lTE  LIFE  AND  SPEECIIE., OF
The feeble state of my own health, which is well known to the
Senate, rendered it imprudent for me to be in the Senate chamber
to-day, and I stayed away for that reason. I never dreamed that
any man in this body would so far forget the courtesies of life, and
the well known usages of the Senate, as to make an assault in my
absence in violation of the distinct understanding of the body when
the subject was postponed.
My colleague says that he did not know that I was not here. Now,
I am informed that my  friend from Texas (Mr. Rusk), when tLhe
morning hour expired, suggested, among other reasons for a postponement, that I was absent. The senator from Texas told my colleague that I was absent, and, therefore, according to the courtesies
of the Senate, his speech should have been postponed. In the face
of a fact known to every man present, my colleague now dares to
say that he did not know I was absent.
Sir, I believe in fair and free discussion. Whatever speeches I
may have to make in reference to my colleague or his political position, or in reference to other senators, will be made to their faces.
I do not wish to avoid the responsibility of a reply to the points that
shall be made. I will not attempt to reply to my colleague upon
hearsay, having been absent, from the causes which I have stated
during the delivery of the greater portion of his speech. I desire,
however, to ask him, with a view to fix the time for the discussion
of the subject, at what period of time I may reasonably look for his
printed speech? I desire to reply to its statements, and I ask the
question with a view to have the subject postponed until the time
which he may name.
MR. TRUMBULL.-I think my remarks will be published on Monday.
MR. DoUGLAS.-If I can rely on seeing the speech published in the
"Globe" on Monday, I will reply to it on Tuesday; and I shall ask
the Senate to accord to me that courtesy. I propose to reply on the
next day after its publication.
MR. SEWARD and MR. TRUMBULL.-Take your own time.
MR. DOUGLAS.-Sir, I understand this game of taking my own
time. Last year, when the Nebraska Bill was under consideration,
the senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner) asked of me the courtesy to have it postponed for a week, until he could examine the
question. I afterward discovered that, previous to that time, he had
written an exposition of the bill-a libel upon me-and sent it olf
under his own frank;, and the postponement thus obtained by my
courtesy was in order to take a week to circulate the libel. I do not
choose to take my own time in that way again. I wish to meet
these misrepresentations at the threshold. If I am right, give uie an
opportunity tc show it. if my colleague is right, I desire to give
him the fuillest and fairest opportunity to show it.
I 
STEPHEIl A. DOUGLAS.
TRUMBULL REBUKED.
I desire how to say a word upon another point.  I understand that
my colleague has told the Senate, as being a matter very material to
this issue, that he comes here as a Democrat, having always been a
Democrat. Sir, that fact will be news to the Democracy of Illinois.
I undertake to assert there is not a Democrat in Illinois who will
not say that such a statement is a libel upon the Democracy of that
State. When he was elected, he received every Abolition vote in
the Legislature of Illinois. Hie received every Know Nothing vote
in the Legislature of Illinois. So far as I am advised and believe, he
received no vote except from persons allied to Abolitionism or Know
Nothingism.  He came here as the Know-Nothing-Abolition candidate, in opposition to the united Democracy of his State, and to the
Democratic candidate.  How  can a man who was elected a, an
Abolition-Know Nothing, come here and claim to be a Democrat,' in
good standing with the Democracy of Illinois? Sir, the Illinois Democracy have no sympathies or alliances with Abolitionism in any
of its forms. They have no connection with Know Nothingism in
any of its forms. If a man has ever been a Democrat, and becomes
either an Abolitionist or Know Nothing, or a Free Soiler, he ceases
that instant to be a Democrat in Illinois.
Sir, why was the statement of my colleague being a Democrat
made, unless to convey the idea that the Illinois Democracy would
harbor and associate with a Know Nothing or an Abolitionist? Sir,
we do no such thing in Illinois. There is a high wall and a deep
ditch between the national Democracy of that State, including the
old national Whig,. the one side, and all Know Nothing and Abolition organizations'   the other.  I can say to senators that Know
Nothingism and Abolitionism in Illinois are one and the same thing.
Every Know Nothing lodge there adopted the Abolition creed, and
every Abolition society supported the Know Nothing candidates.
It may be different in the South; but in the Northwest, and especially in Illinois, a Know  Nothing or an Abolitionist means a
Rebublican.   My  colleague is the head and front of Republicanism in Illinois in opposition to Democracy. You might as well
call the distinguished senator from New York (Mr. Seward), or the
member from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner), or any other leader
of the Republican forces, a Democrat, as to call my colleague a
Democrat.  Why has that assertion been brought into this debate?
Did it prove that my report was wrong?  Did it prove that it was
courteous to make an assault on that report in my absence?
On, the 17th of March, Mr. Douglas reported from the
Committee on Territories, "A bill to authorize the People
.75 
7T   THE LIFE AND SPEECHES )F
of the Territory of Kansas to form a Constitution and State
government, preparatory to their admission into the Union
when they have the requisite population."
On the 20th of March, Mr. Douglas addressed the Senate
in support of this bill, and in reply to the tirade of Mr.
Trumbull. In this speech, he vindicates his report; shows
that the report of Mr. Collamer keeps out of sight the mate.
rial facts of the case; and proves that it was the design of
the reckless leaders of the Freesoil party, to produce a conflict with the Territorial government.  lie defends the Mis.
bourians from the charge of invading and conquering Kansas,
and proves that the whole responsibility of all the disturb.
ances in Kansas, rests upon the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid
Society. When he reached the concluding paragraph of his
remarks, he turned to where Trumbull uneasily sat, and fixing upon him his eagle eye, pronounced in a clear and sonorous voice, and in emphatic tones, those words referring to
the certainty of the fact that even in the United States, the
traitor's doom would fall upon the traitor's head. Trumbull
turned pale, and his head sank upon his breast. He felt
that he was convicted.
The speech will be found in a subsequent part of this
wolk.
REPUBLICAN HYPOCRISY EXPOSED.
Mir. Collamer made a speech uponl-the same subject, on tne
3d of April, and on the 4th, Mr. Douglas responded. Mr.
Collamer had labored hard to show that the free State iner
in Kansas were not such bad fellows after all.  But in this
speech IMr. Douglas shows My incontestable evidence, theii
blood-thirsty nature, their determination to conquer all who
did not believe with them, and to resist the constituted
authorities to a bloody issub, and their preparations of arms
and munitions of war, with which to resist.  He raises thb
k
I 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
specious veil of "peaceful emigration," which concealed the
movements of the free State party in Kansas, and exposes the
secret springs by which they were really actuated, showing
that they were guilty of rebellion and treason. This speecn
is a full and complete exposition of the real history of Kansas, up to that time. The reader will not fail to observe,
toward the conclusion of the speech, how completely Mr.
Douglas exposes the hypocrisy of the Black Republican
party; and how conclusively he shows the hollowness and
insincerity as well as the inconsistency and heartlessness, of
their professions of regard for the negro. Strong in the
consciousness of the rectitude of the principles of the Democratic party, he delineates, with withering scorn, the inconsistent and jarring elements that make up the creed of
the Republican faith, and dares the leaders of that party
to the fight. Like some experienced general, at the head ol
a numerous and well disciplined army, an army which loves:
idolizes, and trusts in their leader-knowing his own strength
and confident of victory because he knows that his cause is
iust, he throws down the gage of battle, and challenges
the onset of the opposing squadrons.   The leaders of the
Republican party quailed before him in the Senate; as that
party itself afterward quailed under the irresistible charge of
the Democracy. The speech will be found in a subsequent
part of this work.
On the 30th of June, Mr. Douglas reported to the Senate
on several bills submitted for the pacification of Kansas, as
also most decidedly against Mr. Seward's proposition to
admit Kansas as a State under the bogus "Topeka" constitution.
Mir. Seward then moved to strike out the whole of Mr.
Douglas' bill, and insert instead, one admitting Kansas under
the Topeka constitution. This motion was defeated —ayes 11i
.,.ys 36.
.77 
78     THE LIFE AND  SPEECHES (OF
The bill was now reported as amended, and the amend
ment made in Commnittee of the Whole concurred in. MTe
bill was'then (8 A.M. on the 3d, the Senate having been in
session all night), ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time; and, on the question of its final passage the vote stood
-yeas 33, nays 12-as follows:
YEAS-Mfessrs. Allen, Bayard, Bell of Tennessee, Benjamin, Biggs, Bigler,
Bright, Brodhead, Brown. Cass, Clay, Crittenden, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick,
Geyer, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson, Jones of Iowa, Mallory, Pratt, Pugh, Reid,
Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Thompson of Kentucky, Toombs, Toucey, Weller,
Wright, and Yulee-33.
NAYsMessrs. Bell, of New  Hampshire, Collamer, Dodge, Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Hale, Seward, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson-12.
So the bill passed the Senate. We give it, in the shape m
which it was sent to the House, in a subsequent part of this
work.
On the 8th of July, Mr. Douglas reported back from the
Committee on Territories the House bill to admit Kansas as a
State, with an amendment striking out all after the enacting
clause, and inserting instead the Senate bill (No 356) just
referred to.
Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, moved that all the Territorial
laws of Kansas be repealed and the Territorial officers dis
missed: rejected-yeas 12, nays 32.
Mr. Collamer of Vermont, proposed an amendment, pro
hibiting slavery in all that portion of the Louisiana purchase
north of 36~ 30' not including tile Territory of Kansas
rejected-yeas 12, nays 30.
I
i 
STEP-HEN A. DOUGLAS.
The amendment reported by Mr. Douglas (i.e. the Senate
bill as passed) was then agreed to-yeas 32, nays 13-and the
bill in this shape passed the Senate. But the Hlouse of
Representatives, where the majority was composed of a
fusion of all shades and classes of oppolJents refused to act
upon it, or to concur in it, and the session terminated without
thIe concurrence of the House
6
79
14 
8s    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES Of,
CHAPTER XI.
RETROSPECTIYE.
A Retrospect-Origin and Causes of Disagreement with the President Not Provoked by Mr. Douglas-Mr. Buchanan owes his Nomination at
Cincinnati to Mr. Douglas-Telegraphic Dispatches-His Efforts to Elect
Mr. Buchanan in 1856-Speech at Springfield in 1857, defending the
Administration-President's Instructions to Governor Walker-Consti.
tution to be Submitted-Executive Dictation-Differences of Opinion
tolerated on all Subjects except Lecompton-Mr. Douglas' Propositions
for Adjustment-Resolutions of Illinois Democracy-Controversy termi nated by the English Bill-War Renewed by the Administration-Coali.
tion between the Federal Officeholders and the Abolitionists-Mr. Dou glas' last Speech in the Senate preparatory to Illinois Canvass.
lN order that the reader may appreciate the nature and im.
portance of the issues involved in the memorable senatorial
canvass in Illinois in 1858, it is but proper we should state
distinctly the origin and causes of the unfortunate disagree
ment between MIr. Douglas and the administration of Mr.
Buchanan.
It will be remembered that Mr. Buchanan owed his nomi.
nation at Cincinnati to the direct and personal interposition
of Mr. Douglas. But for the telegraphic dispatches which
he sent to his friends urging the withdrawal of his own name
and the unanimous nomination of Mr. Buchanan, that gentle.
man could never have received the nomination by a two.
thirds vote, according to the rules of the convention and the
usages of the party. 
STEPHEN A DOUGLAS.
These dispatches are important, serving to show the mag.
nanrimity of Mr. Douglas, and his anxiety to promote the
union and harmony of the Democratic party.
The names of James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce, Lewis
Cass, and Stephen A. Douglas, were put in nomination by
their respective friends. There were 296 votes in the Convention.  On the first ballot Buchanan received 135-2, Pierce
1222, Douglas 33, and Cass 5.  Judge Douglas' votes were
from the following States: Ohio, 4; Kentucky, 3; Illinois,
11; Missouri, 9; Iowa, 4; Wisconsin, 2. There were very few
changes in the ballotings until after the fourteenth, when
Pierce was withdrawn. The two succeeding ballots were
about the same. The sixteenth was as follows: Buchanan,
168; Douglas, 122; Cass, 6. When this ballot was announced, Col. Richardson, of Illinois, arose, and after making
a short explanatory speech, said that he had just received- a
dispatch firom Judge Douglas, which he sent to the chair to
be read, after which, he said he would withdraw that gentleman's name from before the Convention. This dispatch is
so characteristic of Senator Douglas, that we cannot refrain
from reproducing it here.  Its self-saorificing spirit, its con.
ciliatory tone, and its pure Democracy, commend it to the
attention of the country at the present state of political
affairs. It breathes the spirit of devotion to the Democratic
party which has ever characterized the public life of its great
author. It applies to the Presidential Convention system
the great principle Tor which his whole life has been devoted
-the principle that the majority should rule. Let it be re.
membered, that in the Cincinnati Convention he would not
allow his name to be used one moment after any other statesman had received a majority of the votes!  But here is
Judge Douglas' letter, and we ask for it the careful perusal
of every Deumocrat in the nation:
81 
82      TIHE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
WASHINGTON, Jrimo 4, 185.
DEAR SIR: From the telegraphic reports in the newspapers, I fear
that an embittered state of feeling is being engendered in the Con.
vention, which may endanger the harmony and success of our party.
I wish you and all my friends to bear in mind that I have a thou.
sand fold more anxiety for the triumph of our principles. than for
my own personal elevation.
If the withdrawal of my name will contribute to the harmony of
our party, or the success of our cause, I hope you will not hesitate
to take the step. Especially is it my desire that the action of the
Convention will embody and express the wishes, feelings, and principles of the Democracy of the republic; and hence, if Mr. Pierce,
or Mr. Buchanan, or any other statesman, who is faithful to the
great issues involved in the contest, shall receive a majority of th6
Convention, I earnestly hope that all myfriends will unite in insuring him two thirds, and then in making his nomination unanimous.
Let no personal considerations disturb the harmony or endanger the
triumph of our principles.
S. A. DOUGLAS.
To HON. WV. A. RICHARDSON, Cincinnati, O.
The reading of this dispatch was interrupted by frequent
and tremendous applause.   The other dispatches are as
follows:
.rune 5, 1856, 9 A.M.
DEAR SIR: I have just read so much of the platform as relates to
the Nebraska Bill and slavery question. The adoption of that noble
resolution by a unanimous vote of all the States, accomplishes all the
objects I had in view in permitting my name to be used before the
convention. If agreeable to my friends, I would prefer exerting all
my energies to elect a tried statesman on that platform to being the
nominee myself.  At all events do not let my name be used in such
manner as to disturb the harmony of the party or endanger the suc
cess of the work so nobly begun.                   S. A. DOUGLAS.
RON. W. A. RICHARDSON, of Illinois,
Burnet House, Cincinnati, Ohio.
WASHINGTON, ornS 5ah —   A.M.
Mr. Buchanan having received a majority of the convention, is, in
my opinion, entitled to the nomination. I hope my friends will give
effect to the voice of the majority of the party.
S.   DOUGLAS.
BOx. W.. A. RICHARDSON.
(See "Washington Union," June 7th, 1856. )
Many of Mr. Douglas' warmest friends complained of him
bitterly for ha ing thus withheld his own name and secured
I 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
the nomination of his rival, at the critical moment, when it
became evident the latter could not possibly have been nominated without the positive and efficient aid of the former;
and this withdrawal in favor of Mr. Buchanan, was afterwords
used in some quarters as a point of objection to Mr. Douglas'
nomination at Charleston.  But the whole political course of
Mr. Douglas, for a quarter of a century, had been in harmony
with the sentiment enunciated and enforced in those dspatches, that he felt "a thousand fold more interest in the
success of the principles of the Democratic party than in his
own individual promotion."
Immediately after the adjournment of the convention, MVr.
Douglas entered the canvass with that energy and vigor for
which he was remarkable, and it is but fair to add that to his
herculean efforts, in Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and other
States in the campaign of'56, was Mr. Buchanan indebted for
his election, more than to any other man living or dead.
When the election was secured, and the inauguration had
taken place, Mr. Douglas had no personal favors to ask of the
President for either himself or friends, and hence had no
grievances to complain of or disappointments to resent,
Before he left Washington for his home, it is well known that
he was personally consulted by the President, and approved
of the policy of his administration in regard to Kansas affairs,
to be promulgated by Governor Walker in his message and
address to the people of that Territory, viz., that the constitution which was about to be formed at Lecompton should
be submitted to and ratified by the people, at a fair election
to be held for that purpose, before the State cou]  be admitted
into the Union.
Subsequently, when Governor Walker was on his way to
Kansas, he called on Judge Douglas at Chicago by direction
of the President, as he himself says, and read to him the
inaugural address which he was to publish on his arrival ii
83 
84  THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
the Territory, in which the governor stated that he was
authorized by the President and his cabinet to give the assur.
ance that he and they would oppose the admission of Kansas
into the Union as a State under any constitution which was
not first submitted to and ratified by the people.
After copying his instructions from the President in favor
of the submission of the constitution to the people, Governor
Walker added: "I repeat, then, as my clear conviction, that
unless the convention submit the constitution to the vote of
all the actual resident settlers of Kansas, and the election be
fairly and justly conducted, the constitution will be and
ought to be rejected by Congress."
In this interview, Judge Douglas assured Governor Walker,
as he had previously assured the President, that he might
rely on his cordial and hearty cooperation in carrying out
the policy that Kansas should not be forced into the Union
with any constitution which had not been previously submitted to and ratified by the people at a fair election regu.
larly held for that purpose.
A short time afterward, June 12th, 1857, Mr. Douglas
made his celebrated Springfield speech, in which he warmly
defended the administration of Mr. Buchanan, commended
his territorial policy, and predicted for him a successful and
brilliant administration. We have the best reasons for the
assertion that his friendly relations with, and kind feelings
toward Mr. Buchanan continued uninterrupted and undimin
ished until after their well-known interview in Washington
city, about the first of December of that year, upon the ques.
tion of admitting Kansas into the Union under the Lecomrpton
constitution, without submitting the constitution to the peop e
for ratification or rejection.  Mr. Douglas insisted that hn
was bound in honor, good faith, and due regard for the full.
damental principles of all free government, to resist the measure at every hazard and under all circumstances.  Hare we 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
find. the origin and sole cause of the disagreement between
the President and Mr. Douglas, so far as the friends of the
latter have ever been able to discover.  The difficulty wag
not of Mr. Douglas, own seeking or procurement.  He only
claimed that so far as he was concerned it was his right and
duty to carry out in good faith the policy to which he, Go.
vernor Walker, the President, and every member  of his
cabinet, stocd publicly and irrevocably pledged. The Presi.
dent claimed that it was his right and duty, in a message to
Congress, to recommend the admission of Kansas under the
Lecompton constitution. Mr. Douglas did not question either
the right or the duty of the President, provided "he thought
the Lecompton constitution was the act and deed of the people of Kansas, and a fair embodiment of their will." While
conceding to the President entire freedom of action according
to his sense of duty, Mr. Douglas claimed the same privilege
for himself, as a senator representing a sovereign State.
The President, however, would tolerate no difference of
opinion among friends on this question.  Upon the tariffupon specific and ad valorem duties-upon the Pacific Railroad upon the Homestead Bill-upon the Neutrality Laws
-and, indeed, on any and every other question, Democratic
senators and representatives, and cabinet officers, were at
liberty to think and act as they pleased, without impairing
their personal or political relations with the President. But
on the Kansas question, having determined to abandon the
principles and reverse the policy to which he had pledged
the administration and the party, he regarded Mr. Dbuglas'
refilsal to follow him in his change of principles and policy as
a serious reflection upon his own conduct. All freedom of
judgment and action was denied. Implicit obedience to
the behests of the President was demanded. The senator
was required to obey the mandate of the Executive, instead
of to represent the will of iis constituency. Thle representa.
85 
86      THE LIFE AND SI EECHES OF
tives of the States and of the people were required to sur.
render their convictions, theirjudgments and their consciences
to the Executive, and to receive instructions from him instead
of them.
These were the terms and the only conditions upon which
Alr. Douglas could preserve friendly relations with the Pre.
sident.  He met the issue with characteristic alacrity and
boldness.   He  denounced  the Lecompton constitution in
firm but respectful terms, not because it provided for a slave
State, but because it was not the act and deed of the people
of Kansas, and did not reflect their will.
Foreseeing the rent the agitation of this unfortunate
question was likely to make in the Democratic party, and the
irreparable damage to which it would be likely to lead, Mr.
Douglas was anxious to heal the breach and settle the difflculty on any fair and just terms, that were consistent with
fidelity to his own constituency, and to those principles of
popular rights and self-government to which he was so
solemnly pledged, and upon which he believed the peace and
harmony of the country depended. He submitted various
propositions in a spirit of conciliation and fraternal feeling
for the pacification of the difficulty.
He proposed to refer the Lecompton constitution back to
the people tf Kansas, for their adoption or rejection, at a
fair election, to be held in pursuance of law for that purpose,
and if ratified by a majority of the legal votes cast at such
election, Kansas was to be declared a State of the Union
without further legislation.
ie proposed to pass an act of Congress authorizing the
Territorial legislat-re to call a new convention and form a
constitution, and submit the same to the people for adoption
at the polls, and if ratified at such electi)n, Kansas should
be received into the Union, with or without slavery, as such
constitution should prescribe, as provided in the case of Min
0 
STEPHEN  A. D()UGLAS.
nesota, to which the President had referred as affording an
example to be followed in all future cases of admission of new
States.
He offered to accept what is known as the "Crittenden.
Montgomery Amendment," as a satisfactory solution of the
question, in harmony with the fundamental principles of
self-government.
And finally, he proposed a general law, wiich would not
only settle the existing difficulty, but prevent all future controversies on the subject, providing that " neither Kansas nor
any other Territory shall be admitted into the Union as a
State, until it shall have been ascertained, by a legal census,
to contain population requisite for a member of Congress,
according to the existing ratio of representation for the time
being; and that the example of the Minnesota case shall be a
rule of action in the future, as recommended in the Presi
dent's message."
This proposition was offered substantially at a later period
of the session in the House, by General Quitman, of Mississippi, who intended to have called it up in the event of the
failure of the English bill. It would have been happy for
the Democratic party and the country had it been accepted.
Besides thoroughly uniting the party, it would have laid the
foundation of a sound and healthy principle governing the
admission of new States, and would have saved Congress
from acting on the Kansas Wyandlot constitution.
These several propositions and all others for conciliation
and harmony, were unceremoniously rejected by the partisans
of the Pre,sident, and the unconditional submission of the
rebels demanded under the penalty of having all their friends
removed from office and made victims of Executive vengeance. The system of proscription and persecution which
followed is too fresh in the public mind to require recapitu.
lation.
8 - 
8  THE LIFE AND SPEECH ES OF
The wisdom and forecast evinced by Mir. Douglas in
opposing the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, has been amply vindicated by succeeding events.
The inmmense vote by which it was rejected when submitted
under the temptations of the English bill- thle subsequent
confession of actors in the fraudulent voting the discovery
of the bogus election returns the statements of Governor
Denver, and other well-authenticated facts and circumstances9
attest the correctness of Mr. Douglas' position; while the
declaration of Senator Hammond, who voted for the measure, that "the constitution ought to have been kicked out
of Congress," and the high repute which Governor Wise and
other leading southern statesmen who opposed the project
held in the respect and confidence of the Southern people,
clearly indicate that their "sober second thought" did justice
to the statesmanlike view which Mr. Douglas took of this
unfortunate issue.
RESOLUTIONS OF ILLINOIS DEMOCRATIC COVENTION.
Notwithstanding the ferocity with which the warfare was
continued against Mr. Douglas and his friends during the
Lecompton controversy, all fair-minded men took it for
granted that hostilities would cease with the settlement of
the question out of which the contest arose. Mr. Douglas
and the Illinois Democracy seem to have entertained this
reasonable expectation, as appears from the proceedings of
the Illinois Democratic State Convention, which assembled at
Springfield, on the 21st of April, 1858, for the nomination of
candidates for State officers.  While the resolutions were explicit and firm in the assertion of the principles on which
they had rejected the Lecompton constitution, they were
conciliating in spirit and respectful in language. They con
tain no assault an the Pi-esident, no attack upon the adminiu 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
tration, and indulge in no complaint at the unprovoked and
vindictive warfare which had been waged  against tlern.
They maintain a dignified and manly silence, a generous
forbearance on all these points, with a view to the preservation of the organization, the usages, and the integrity of the
Democratic party upon its time-honored principles, as enunciated in the Cincinnati Platform. The resolutions adopted
by the Convention were introduced into the Senate by Mr.
Douglas on the 25th of April, "AS FURNISHING THE PLATFORM ON WHICH THE ILLINOIS DEMOCRACY STAND, AND BY
WHICH I MEAN TO ABIDE.")
They were as follows:
Colonel McClernand, from the committee to prepare solutions for the
consideration of the convention, made the following report; which was
read, and, on motion, each resolution was separately read and unanimously
adopted:
1. Resolved, That the Democratic party of the State of Illinois, through
their delegates in general convention assembled, do re-assert and declare
the principles avowed by them as when, on former occasions, they have
presented their candidates for popular suffrage.
2. Resolved, That they are unalterably attached to, and will maintain
inviolate, the principles declared by the national convention at Cincinnati
in June, 1856.
3. Resolved, That they avow, with renewed energy, their devotion to
the Federal Union of the United States, their earnest desire to avert sectional strife,.their determination to maintain the sovereignty of the States,
and to protect every State, and the people thereof, in all their constitutional rights..
4. Resolved, That the platform of principles established by the national
democratic convention at Cincinnati is the only.authoritative exposition of
Democratic doctrine, and  they deny the right of any power on earth,
except a like body, to change or interpolate that platform, or to prescribe
new or different tests; that they will neither do it themselves nor permit it
to be done by others, but will recognize &all men as democrats who stand
by and uphold Democratic principles.
5. Resolved, That in the organization of States the people have a rbght
to decide, at the polls, upon the character of their fundamental law, ard
89 
90     THE, LIFE AND SPEECIIES OF
that the experience of the past year has conclusively demonstrated the
wisdom and propriety of the principle, that the fundpmental law under
which the Territ)ry seeks admission into the Union should be submitted
to the people of such Territory, for their ratification or rejection, at a fair
election to be held for that purpose; and that, before such Territory is
admitted as a State, such fundamental law should receive a majority of the
legal votes cast at such election; and they deny the right, and condemn
the attempt, of any convention, called for the purpose of framing a constitution, to impose the instrument formed by them upon the people against
their known will.
6. Resolved, That a fair application of these principles requires that
the Lecompton constitution should be submitted to a direct vote of the
actual inhabitants of Kansas, so that they may vote for or against that
instrument, before Kansas shall be declared one of the States of this Union;
and until it shall be ratified by the people of Kansas, at a fair election
held for that purpose, the Illinois Democracy are unalterably opposed tc
the admission of Kansas under that constitution.
7.  Resolved, That we heartily approve and  sustain the manly, firm,
patriotic,  and  democratic position of S. A. Douglas, Isaac N. Morris,
thomas L. Harris, Aaron Shaw, Robert Smith., and Samuel S. Marshall,
the Democratic delegation of Illinois in Congress, upon the question of the
admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution; and that, by their
firm and uncompromising devotion to Democratic principles. and to the
cause of justice, right, truth, and the people, they have deserved our
adjniration, increased, if possible, our confidence in the'r integrity and
patriotism, and merited our warm approbation, our sin( ere and hearty
thanks, and shall receive our earnest support.
8. Resolved,  That  in  all things wherein the national  adminstration
sustain and carry out the principles of the Democratic party as expressed
in the Cincinnati platform, and affirmed in these resolutions, it is entitled
to, and will receive, our hearty support.
By the adoption of the English bill a few days afterward,
the Lecompton controversy was at an end so far as Congress
was concerned. By that act the question was banished from
the halls of Congress and remanded to the people of Kansas
to be determined at an election to be held on the first Moiin.
day in August, 1858.
In a speech in the Senate after the passage of the EnLg1isi) 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
bill, Mr. Douglas referred to the Lecompton controversy as
at an end-a dead issue which should no longer distract and
divide the Democratic party, in these words:
But when tlhi bill became a law, the whole question was remanded to
Kansas, to be decided at an election, which has beeii fixed for the first
Monday in August. Whichever way the people of Kansas may decide the
question at that election will be final and conclusive. If they reject the
proposition submitted by Congress, the Lecompton constitution is dead,
and there is an end of the controversy  If, on the contrary, they accept
the'proposition,' Kansas,  from that moment, becomes a State of the
Union, and thus the controversy terminates. Whether they shall accept
or reject the proposition is a question for the people of Kansas to decide
for themselves, and with which neither Congress nor the people of the
several States, nor any person, official or otherwise, outside of that Territory, has any right to interfere. Hence, the Lecompton controversy is at
an end; for all men, of all parties, must be content with and abide by
whatever decision the people of Kansas may make.
NO POINT OF DIFFERENCE NOW BETWEEN DEMOCRATS.
And again, in the same speech, Mr. Douglas said:
Under these circumstances the question naturally arises, what  controverted principle is there left for Democrats to differ and divide about?
In the first place, we all agree, not only Democrats, but men of all parties, that whatever decision the people of Kansas may make at the election
on the first Monday in August must be final and conclusive.
Now, if we can agree, as I have always avowed my willingness to do,
to sustain President Buchanan's recommendation, that in all future cases
the constitution shall be submitted to the people, as was required in the
Minnesota case, all matters of dispute and controversy willIbe at an end
and our Territorial policy will be firmly placed on a wise and just basis.
Whatever justification or excuse may be urged for the war.
fare upon Mr. Douglas and his friends during the Lecompton
controversy, no patriotic reason can be assigned after the
passage of the English bill and the adoption of the magnani.
91 
92  THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
mnous and conciliating resolutions of the Illinois State cdnven
tion, for formiing a coalition in that State with the Abolitionists to defeat the regular Democratic nominee for State officers, members of the legislature, congressmen, and a United
States senator, alld filling their places with abolitionists.  Io
other reason can b)e assigned for keeping up the warfare after
the question had been finally settled than an insatiable desire
for revenge. No administration can be justified in dividing
and destroying the party by which it was elevated to power
upon the plea of resentment for real or imaginary grievances
growing out of a past political issue. The coalition between
the Republicans and the federal officeholders in Illinois, for
the purpose of electing Mr. Lincoln to the Senate in the place
of Mr. Douglas, by violating all the usages and bolting the
regular nomination of the Democratic party, must form a
dark page in the history of Mr. Buchanan's administration;
Hlaving been voted down and defeated by overwhelming majorities in the regular organization in every county in the
State for the election of delegates to the State convention,
the federal officeholders called a new convention at Springfield on the 9th of June, 1858, and formed a separate ticket
to be supported by the bolters, for the avowed purpose of
defeating the regularly nominated ticket of the party, and
securing the ascendency of Black Republicanism in Illinois
by means of the divisionthus produced in the Democratic
ranks.
On the 15th of June, 1858, Mlr. Douglas made a speech in
the Senate, in which he exposed the combination between
the federal officeholders and the Abolitionists in Illinois, and
called the attention of the Democratic party in Congress,
and of the whole country, to this unholy and unnatural alli
ance; and also showing tlhat the federal officials professed
to have the authority of the President and his cabinet for the
course they were pursuing. 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
CHAPTER XH.
ar: the 2d of February, 1858, President Buclhanan trans
mitted to Congress a copy of the proposed constitution of
ia  as, framed by the convention at Lecompton; accompanied
by a message from himself, from which we make the following
.'emarkable extracts:
The Kansas convention, thus lawfully constituted, proceeded to
filamne a constitution; and having completed their work, finally adjo-urned on the 7th day of November last. They did not think propei, to submnit the whole of this constitution to a popular vote; but
they did submit the question whether Kansas should be a free or a
slave State to the people. No person thought of any other question.
For my own part, when I instructed Governor Walker in general
terms in favor of submitting the constitution to the people, 1 had no
object ia view except the all-absorbing question of slavery.
I then believed, and still believe, that under the organic act the
Kansas convention were bound to submit this all-important question
of slavery to the people.  It was never, however, my opinion that,
independently of this act, they would have been bound to submit any
portion of the constitution to a popular vote in order to give it validity.
It has been solemnly adjudged, by the highest judicial tribunal
known to our laws, that slavery exists in Kansas by virtue of the
Constitution of the United States. Kansas is therefore, at this moment, as much a slave State as Georgia or South Carolina. Without
this, the equality of the Sovereign States composing the Union, would
be violated, and the use and enjoyment of a Territory acquired by
the common treasure of all the States, would be closed against the
people and the property of nearly half the members of the Confeder.
acy.  Slavery can, therefore, never be prohibited in Kansas, except
by means of a constitutional provision, and in no other manner can
this be obtained so promptly, if a majority of the people desire it, as
by admitting it into the Union under its present constitution.
On the other hand, should Congress reject the constitution, under
the idea of affording the disaffected in Kansas a third o)portunity
of prohibiting slavery in the State, which they might have done
twice before if in the majority, no mnan can foretell the consequences.
(f Congress, for the sake of these men who refused to vote for dele.ates to the convention, when they might have excluded slavery
from +he constitution, and who afterward refused to vote on the 21st
December last, when they might, as tey claim, have stricken slavery
ko the constitution, should now reject the State, because sla-ery
911
li 
S8TEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
remains on the constitution, it is manifest that the agitation up(on
this dangerous subject will be renewed in a more alarming form that
it has ever yet assumed.
DOUGLAS INTERROGATES THE PRESIDENT.
. Two days after the reception of this extraordinary message
by Congress, Senator Douglas called on the President for
more definite information regarding the facts to which the
message alluded, as follows:
MR. DouGLAS-I desire to offer a resolution, calling for infor rration which will hasten our action on the Kansas question. I will
read it for information; but if it gives rise to debate, of course it will
go over:
Resolved-That the President be requested to furnish all the information
within his possession or control on the following points:
1. The return and votes for and against a convention at an election h-ld in
the Territory of Kansas, in October, 1856.
2. The census and registration of votes in the Territory of Kansas, under the
provisions of the act of the said legislature, passed in February, 1857, providing for the election of delegates and assembling a convention to frame a constitution.
3. The returns of an election held in said Territory on the 21st of December,
1857, under the schedule of the Lecompton constitution, upon the question of
" constitution with slavery" or "constitution without slavery."
4. The returns of an election held in the Territory of Kansas on the 4th day
of January, 1858, under the authority of a law passed by the legislature of said
Territory, submitting the constitution formed by the Lecompton conventionto
a vote of the people for ratification or rejection.
5. The returns of the election held in said Territory on the 4th day of January, 1858, under the schedule of the Lecompton constitution, for Governor and
other State officers, and for members of the legislature, specifying the names
of each officer to whom a certificate of election has been accorded, and the
number of votes cast and counted for each candidate, and distinguishing between the votes returned within the time and in the mode provided in said
schedule, and those returned subsequently and in other modes, and stating
whether at either of said elections any returns of votes were rejected in consequence of not having been returned in time, or to the right officer, or in proper form, or for any other cause. stating spec fically for what cause.
6. All correspondence between any of the Executive departments and Secretary or (Gouvernor Denver relating to Kansas affairs, and which has not been
communicated to the Senate.
Resolved-That in the event all the information desired in the foregoing resolution is not now in the possession of the President, or of any of the Executive
departments, he be respectfully requested to give the proper orders and take
the necessary steps to procure the same for the use of the Senate.
MR. SLIDELL objected, and the resolutions, und.er the rules, were
Li id over.
94 
THE LIFE AND 8 viEOHES OF
MINORITY REPORT ON KANSAS A FFAIRS.
The majority of the Committee on Territories being in
favor of the admission of Kansas under the Lecomnl)ton con.
btitation, submitted through Mr. Green a report to that
effect. On the same day, February 18, 1858, Mr. Douglas
submitted a Minority Report, which will be found in a subsequent part of this work.
This report is a most vigorous argument, showing that
there was no evidence that the Lecompton constitution was
the act of the people of Kansas, or that it embodied their
will; that the right of admission accrued to a Territory only
when they had sufficient population; that the President and
his cabinet had solemnly assured the people of Kansas that
the constitution should be submitted to them for their free
acceptance or rejection; that the 60 delegates composing the
Lecompton convention were chosen by 19 of the 38 counties
of the Territory, while the other 18 counties were entirely
.-lisfranchised; he tears away the thin veil that covered the
designs of the members of the Lecompton convention, and
shows that while knowing that an immense majority of the
people of Kansas were opposed to the introduction of slavery
they yet determined that they would form a constitution sanectioning slavery, and submit it in such a form as to render it
impossible for them to reject it; that the election held in
Kansas on the 21st of December, 1857, was not valid and
binling on the people of the Territory, for the reason that it
was not held in pursuance of any law; that the election of
January 4, 1858, was lawful and valid, having been fairly
conducted under a valid law of the Territorial legislature;
and that there was a majority of 10,000 votes against the L,
( ompton constitution.
7
...?...
95 
8STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS,
DEBATE ON LECOMPTON.
During the moLth of March, 1858, the proposition to
admit Kansas under the Lecompton constitution was warmly
debated in the Senate.  On the 22d, Mr. Douglas made a
speech which was one of the ablest efforts of his life, and
will be read with interest and admiration, as lqng as a vestige
of the political history of the Union exists. In this speech,
after a rapid and brief review of his course in Congress, he
shows that it was the chief merit of the Compromise mea.
sures of 1850, that they provided a rule of action which
should apply everywhere, north andi south of 360 30', not
only to the territories we then had, but to all we might
afterward acquire; and thus prevent all strife and agitation
in future. tie shows that the Lecompton constitution is not
the act and deed of the people of Kansas, and does not
embody their will. In concluding, he alludes to the -ap.
proaching termination of his senatorial term, and to the
efforts that the Executive would make to prevent his reclece
tion. In tones that rang through the Selnate chamber clear
and sonorous as the blast of a trumpet, he gave utteranet
to these noble sentiments:
" I do-not recognize the right of the President to tell me my duty
in the Senate chamber. When the time comes that a Senator is to
account to the Executive, and not to his State, what becomes of the
severeignty of the States? Is it intended to brand every Democrat
as a traitor who is opposed to the Lecompton constitution? Come
what may, I intend to vote, speak, and act, according to my own
sense of duty.  I have no vindication to make of my counre.  Let
it speak for itself. Neither the frowns of power nor the influence
of patronage will change my action, or drive me from my principles.
I stand immovably upon the principles of State Sovereignty, upon
which the campaign was fought and the election won. - I will stand
by the Constitution of the lUnited States, with all its compromises,
and perform all my (obligations under it. If I shall-be driven into
private life, it is a fate that has no terrors for me.  I prefer private
.....~...
96 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
fe, preserving my own self-respect, to abject and servile submissioi
to executive will. If the alternative be private life, or servile obe.
dience to executive will, I am prepared to retire.  Official position
has no charms for me, when deprived of freedom of thought and
action."
We give this great speech entire in a subsequent part of
this work.   It was delivered in the evening, the Senate
chamber being brilliantly illuminated, and the galleries
crowded, many ladies being admitted to seats bn the floor of
the Senate.
On the next day, however, March 23, the bill admitting
Kansas into the Union under the Lecompton constitution,
passed the Senate by a vote of 33 to 25. Previous to taking
this vote, Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky, moved a substitute
for the bill, to the effect that the Constitution be submitted
to the people of Kansas at once; and if approved, the State
to be admitted by the President's proclamation. If rejected,
the people to call a convention and frame a constitution to
be submitted to the popular vote. Special provisions made
against frauds at elections. The substitute was lost-yeas
24, nays 34.
On the first of April, the bill as passed was taken up in the
House of Representatives, and Mr. Montgomery, of Penn.
sylvania, offered, as a substitue, the same one proposed by
Mr. Crittenden. This was adopted in the House, ayes 120,
nays, 112.
THE ENGLISH BILL.
The Senate refused to concur in this substitute, and a
committee of conference was appointed by each House, who
reported what has since been known as the English bill,
which passed both Houses of Congress, and became a law.
But in the debate in the Senate on the Crittenden-Montgonecry amendment, Mr. Douglas spoke in its favor and
.'*. *....
Io
97 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
against the English bill, and in the course of his remarkr
said:
"I had hoped that the principle of self-government in the Territo.
ries, the great principle of popular sovereignty which we all profess
to cherish, on which all our institutions are founded, would lave
been carried out in good faith in Kansas. I believe, sir, that if the
amendment inserted by the House of Representatives be concurred
in by the Senate to-day, and become the law of the land, the great
principle of popular sovereignty, on which all our institutions rest,
will receive a complete triumph, and there will be. peace and quiet
and fraternal feeling all over this country.
"We are told that this vexed question ought to be settled; that the
country is exhausted with strife and controversy; and that peace
should be restored by the admission of Kansas. Sir, why not admit
it? You can admit it in one hour, and restore peace to the country,
if you will concur with with the House of Representatives in what
is called the Crittenden amendment. This amendment provides that
Kansas is admitted into the Union on the fundamental condition precedent that the constitution be submitted to the people for ratification,
and if assented to by them, it becomes their constitution; if not
assented to, they are to proceed to make one to suit themselves, and
the President is to declare the result, and Kansas is to be in the Union
without further legislation. Concur with the House of Representatives, and your action is final; Kansas is in the Union, with the right
to make her constitution to suit herself; and there is an end to the
whole controversy."
The English bill, as passed, will be found in a subsequent
part of this work.
On the 29th of April, Mr. Douglas again addressed theSenate on the same general subject, with more particular
reference to the English bill, for the admission of Kansas,
which had passed the House of Representatives. In this
speech, he says:
Mr. President: I have carefully examined the bill reported by the
committee of conference as a substitute for the House amendment to
the Senate bill for the admission of Kansas, with an anxious desire
to) find in it such provisions as would enable me to give it my support. I had hoped that, after the disagreement of the two houses
.uon this. question, some plan, some form of bill, could have beeD
. -.':: *
98 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
agreed upon, which would harmcnize and quiet the country, and
reunite those who agree in principle and in political action on this
great question, so as to take it out of Congress. I am not able, in
the bill which is now under consideration, to find that the principle
for which I have contended is fairly carried out. The position, and
the sole position, upon which I have stood in this whole controversy.
has been that the people of Kansas, and of each other Territory, in
forming a constitution for admission into the Union as a State.
should be left perfectly free to form and mold their domestic insti
tutions and organic act in their own way, without coercion on the
one side, or any improper or undue influence on the other.
The question now arises, is there such a submission of the Lecompton constitution as brings it fairly within that principle? In terms,
the constitution is not submitted at all; but yet we are told that it
amounts to a submission, because there is a land grant attached to
it, and they are permitted to vote for the land grant, or against the
land grant; and, if they accept the land grant, then they are required
to take the constitution with it; and, if they reject the land grant,
it shall be held and deemed a decision against'coming into the Union
under the Lecompton constitution. Hence it has been argued in one
portion of the Union that this is a submission of the constitution,
and in another portion that it is not. We are to be told that submission is popular sovereignty in one section, and submission in
another section is not popular sovereignty.
Sir, I had hoped that when we came finally to adjust this question,
we should have been able to employ language so clear, so unequivocal, that there would have been no room for doubt as to what was
meant. and what the line of policy was to be in the future. Are
these people left free to take or reject- the Lecompton constitution I
It they accept the land grant they are compelled to take it. If they
reject the land grant, they are out of the Union. Sir, I have no
special objection to the land grant as it is. I think it is a fair one,
and if they had put this further addition, that if they refused to come
in under the Lecompton constitution with the land grant, they might
proceed to form a new constitution, and that they should then have
the same amount of lands, there would have been no bounty held
out for coming in under the Lecompton constitution; but when the
law gives them the six million acres in the event they take this constitution, and does not indicate what they are to have in the event
they reject it, and wait until they can form another, I submit the
question whether there is not an inducement, a bounty held out to
influence these people to vote for this Lecompton constitution?
It may be said that when they attain the ninety-three thousand
population, or if they wait until after 1860, if they acquired the
population required by the then ratio-which may be one hundred
and ten thousand or one hundred and twenty thousand — -and form a
constitution under it, we shall give then the same amount of land
that is now given by this grant.  That may be so, and may not be
*  *..,,:
*',o e,
. 
99 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
so. I believe it will be so; and yet in the House bill, for which this
is a substitute, the provision was that they should have this same
amount of land, whether they came in under the Lecoml)ton constitution or whether they formed a new constitution. There was no
doubt, no uncertainty left in regard to what were to be their rights
under the land grant, whether they took the one constitution or the
other. Hence that proposition was a fair submission, without any
penalties on the one side, or any bounty or special favor or privilege
on the other to influence their action. In this view of the case, I
am not able to arrive at the conclusion that this is a fair submission
either of the question of the constitution itself, or of admission into
the Union under the constitution and the proposition submitted by
this bill.
There is a further contingency. In the event that they reject this
constitution, they are to stay out of the Union until they shall attain
the requisite population for a member of Congress, according to the
then ratio of representation in the other House. I have no objection
to making it a general rule that Territories shall be kept out until
they have the requisite population. I have proposed it over and
over again. I am willing to agree'to it and make it applicable to
Kansas if you will make it a general rule. But, sir, it is one thing
to adopt that rule as a general rule and adhere to it in all cases, and
and it is a very different, and a very distinct thing, to provide that
if they will take this constitution, which the people have shown that
they abhor, they may come in with forty thousand people, but if
they do not, they shall stay out until they get ninety thousand; thus
discriminating between the different character of institutions that
may be formed. I submit the question whether it is not congres.sional intervention, when you provide that a Territory may come in
with one kind of constitution with forty thousand, and with a different kind of constitution, not until she gets ninety thousand, or one
hundred and twenty thousand? It is intervention with inducements
to control the result.  It is intervention with a bounty on the one
side and a penalty on the other. I ask, are we prepared to construe
the great principle of popular sovereignty in such a manner as will
recognize the right of Congress to intervene and control the decision
that the people may make -on this question?
I do not think that this bill brings the question within that principle which I have held dear, and in defence of which I have stood
here for the last five months, battling against the large majority of
my political friends, and in defence of which I intend to stand as
long as I have any association or connection with the politics of the
country.
Mr. President, I say now, as I am about to take leave of this
subject, that I never can consent to violate that great principle of
State equality, of State sovereignty, of popular sovereignty, by any
discrimination, either in the one direction or in the other. My
Eition is taken.  I know not what its consequences will be per
:"*,:....
100 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
sonally, to me. I will not inquire what those consequences may be.
If I cannot remain in public life, holding firmly, immovably, to the
great principle of self-government and state equality, I shall go into
private life, where I can preserve the respect of my own conscience
under the conviction that I have done my duty and followed the
principle wherever its logical consequences carried me.
SUBSEQUENT AFFAIRS OF KANSAS.
On the next day, however, April 30, the Senate passed the
English bill.  So far as the action of Congress was concerned,
Kansas was admitted: that is, provided the people there
chose to come in under the English bill.
But they did not so choose. In order to give completeness to this view of affairs in Kansas, we will state, though in
doing so we greatly anticipate the order of time, that when
the election took place, under the provisions of the English
bill, the people of Kansas indignantly rejected the propositions of the bill, and at the election held on the 3d of August,
1858, trampled the odious Lecompton constitution under
their feet, by a majority of 10,000 votes. Soon after the
election, Gov. Denver resigned, and Samuel Medary of Ohi(
was appointed governor. The Territorial legislature met in
January, 1859, repealed many of the laws of the previous
session, passed a new apportionment act; and an act referring
to the people the question of a new constitutional convention,
the election to be held March 21. The people decided for a
constitutional convention by a majority of 3,881. The conventioni  met at Wyandot, on the 5th of July, 1859, and
adopted a constitution by a small majority, the minority pro.
testing against its adoption.
MR. DOUGLAS ON BRITISH AGGRESSION.
On the 29th of May, 1858, Mr. Douglas addressed the Senate,
on the general subject of the recent British aggression on
101 
BTEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
our ships, in a speech which made a most powerful impression, not only on the Senate, but on the whole countly. He
ridiculed the idea of simply passing resolutions on the sub.
ject; and urged the importance, nay, the necessity, of at
once adopting such energetio measures as should convince
England that the time had come at last when this nation
would no longer submit to her aggressions. He urged that
the President of the United States should be clothed with
power to punish instantly and effectually, all outrages on our
flag, as soon as committed:" confer the power, and hold
him responsible for its abuse."  He showed that the Presi.
dent of the United States was utterly powerless abroad, and
that unless some such measures as he proposed should be
adopted, the outrages of Great Britain would be continued.  He then proceeded to prove, from his own observation,
that the coast of America was not defenceless; that indeed,
the coast of the United States is in a better condition of defence than that of Great Britain; that New York was at this
day better defended than London or Liverpool: and that
it is easier for a hostile fleet to enter the harbor of either of
those cities than the harbor of New York.
"While I am opposed to war," said Mr. Douglas, "while
I have no idea of any breach of the peace with England, yet,
I confess to you, sir, if war should come by her act, and not
ours; by her invasion of our rights, and our vindication of
the same; I would administer to every citizen and every
child Hannibal's oath of eternal hostility as long as the English flag waved, or their government claimed a foot of land
upon the American continent, or the adjacent islands. Sir,
I would make it a war that would settle our disputes forever, not only of the right of search upon the seas, but the
right to tread with a hostile foot upon the soil of the American continent or its appendages."
The reader will find the whole of this eloquent and patri.
102 
THN LIFE AND SPREOHEI 0F
otic speech, in a subsequent part of this work. It electrified
the whole nation. Men breathed freer and easier when they
read it: and no one with a spark of American feeling in his
breast failed to respond to the noble sentiments of the ga
lant senator from Illinois.
4:
108 
GTEPHE'N A. DOUGLAIlb
CHAPTER XIIIm.
Mr. Douglas returns to Chicago-Brilliant Reception-Makes his Speech
opening the Campaign-Lays down Principles on which he conducted it.
SooN after Congress adjourned, in June, 1858, Mr. Douglas
returned to Illinois to engage in his canvass for reelection to
the Senate, and to vindicate the line of policy which he had
felt it his duty to pursue. He arrived at Chicago on the 9th
of July, and was welcomed by such a reception as no public
man has ever received in this country. The newspapers of
that city, of all shades of political opinions, agreed in reproesenting it as one of the most magnificent orations on record.
Many columns of their sheets were filled with descripti6ns of
the arrangements for the reception, the vast concourse of
people-estimated at 30,000-the processions, illumination of
houses, fireworks, banners, cannon, etc., etc., which greeted
Mr. Douglas' return to his home.
The great event of this imposing pageant, however, was
the speech of Mr. Douglas, in reply to the address of wel.
come. After an appropriate and feeling acknowledgment
of the honor done him in this grand testimonial, he proceeded
to a discussion of the principles involved in the great contro.
versy in which he was engaged.  As this was the opening
speech of the canvass, and clearly defines the principles on
which it was afterward conducted through a series of more
than one hundred joint and separate debates, we shall make
such copious extracts as may enable the reader to understand
the points in issue in that memorable campaign.
l1,4.4 
THEB LIFE AND SP]EEdHES OF    105
PRINCIPLES OF SEILF-GOVERNMENT, AS APPLICABLE TO THE
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION.
If there is any one principle dearer and more sacred than all others in
free governments, it is that which asserts the exclusive right of a free peo.
ple to form and adopt their own fundamental law, and to manage and
regulate their own internal affairs and domestic institutions. (Applause.)
When I found an effort being made, during the recent session of Congress, to force a constitution upon the people of Kansas against their will,
and to force that State into the Union with a constitution which her people
had rejected by more than 10,000 majority, I felt bound, as a man of
honor and a representative of Illinois, bound by every consideration of
duty, of fidelity, and of patriotism, to resist to the utmost of my power the
consummation of what I deemed fraud. (Cheers.) With others I did
resist it, and resisted it successfully until the attempt was abandoned'
(Great applause.) We forced them to refer that constitution back to the
people of Kansas, to be accepted or rejected, as they shall decide at an
election, which is fixed for the first Monday of August — next. It is true
that the mode of reference and the form of the submission was not such as
I could sanction with myvote, for the reason that it discriminated between
free States and slave States; providing that if Kansas consented to come
in under the Lecompton constitution it should be received with a population of 35,000; but if she demanded another constitution, more consistent
with the sentiments of her people and their feelings, that it should not be
received into the Union until she had 93,420 inhabitants. (Cries of " hear,
hear," and cheers.)  I did not consider that mode of submission fair, for
the reason that any election is a mockery which is not free-that any election is a fraud upon the rights of the people which holdsout inducements
for affirmative votes, and threatens penalties for negative votes.  (Hear,
hear.)  But whilst I was not satisfied with the mode of submission, whilst
I resisted it to the last, demanding a fair, a just, a free mode of submissicn,
still, when the law passed placing it within the power of the people of
Kansas at that election to reject the Lecompton constitution, and then
make another in harmony with their principles and their opinions (Bravo,
and applause), I did not believe that either the penalties on the one hand,
or the inducements on the other, would prevail on that people to accept a
constitution to which they are irreconcilably opposed.  (Cries of "glori-.
ous," and renewed applause.) All I can say is, that if their votes can be
controlled by such considerations, all th- sympathy which has beep 
STElPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
expended uporn them has been misplaced, and all the efforts that have been
made in defence of their right to self-government have been made in au
unworthy cause.  (Cheers.)
NO RIGHT TO FORCE EVEN A GOOD THING ON AN UNWILLING
PEOPLE.
I will be entirely frank with you.  My object was to secure the right
of the people of each State and of each Territory, North or South, to de cide the question for themselves, to have slavery or not, just as they
choose; and my opposition to the Lecompton constitution was not pre dicated upon thle ground that it was a pro-slavery Constitution (cheers),
nor would my action have been different had it been a free-soil Constitu tion. My speech against it was made on the 9th of December, while the
vote on the slavery clause in that Constitution was not taken until the 21st
of the same month, nearly two weeks after. I made my speech solely on
the ground that it was a violation of the fundamental principles of free
government; on the ground that it was not the act and deed of the people
of Kansas; that it did not embody their will; that they were averse to
it; and hence I denied the right of Congress to force it upon them, either
as a free State or a slave State. (Bravo.) I deny the right of Congress
to force a slaveholding State upon an unwilling people.   (Cheers.)  I
deny their right to force a free State upon an unwilling people. (Cheers.)
I deny their right to force a good thing upon a people who are unwilling
to receive it.  (Cries of "Good, good," and cheers.)  The great principle
is the right of every community to judge and decide for itself whether a
thing is right or wrong, whether it would be good or evil for them to
adopt it; and the right of free action, the right of free thought, the right
of free judgment upon the question is dearer to every true American than
any other under a free government. My objection to the Lecompton contrivance was that it undertook to put a constitution on the people of
Kansas against their will, in opposition to their wishes and thus violated
the great principle upon which all our institutions rest. It is no answer to
this argument to say that slavery is an evil, and hence should not be tolerated. You must allow the people to decide for themselves whether it is
a good or an evil. You allow them to decide for themselves whether they
desire a Maine liquor law or not; you allow them to decide for themselves what kind of common schools they will have; what system of
banking they will adopt, or whether they will adopt any at all; you allow
them to decide for themselves the relations between husband and wife,
106 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
parent and child, and guardian and ward; in fact, you allow them to den
cide for themselves all other questions, and why not upon this ques.
tion? (Cheers.) Whenever you put a limitation upon the right of any
people to decide what laws they want, you have destroyed the fundamental principle of self-government. (Cheers).
ORIGIN OF THE IRREPRESSIBLE CONFLICT.
The Republican convention which nominated Mr. Lincoln
for United States senator in opposition to Mr. Douglas, was
held in the city of Springfield, on the 15th of June, 1858.
Immediately after Mr. Lincoln's unanimous nomination was
announced, he read to the convention a carefully elaborated
speech accepting the nomination which he had prepared in
anticipation of that event, and which was published for cir.
culation by order of the convention, as an authoritative exposition of the principles of the rlepublican party. Mr.
Douglas referring to this speech, said:
Mr. Lincoln made a speech before that Republican convention which
unanimously nominated him for the Senate-a speech evidently well prepared and carefully written-in which he states the basis upon which he
proposes to carry on the campaign during this summer. In it he lays dowL
two distinct propositions which I shall notice, and upon which I shall take
a direct and bold issue with him. (Cries of "Good, good," and great
applause).
His first and main proposition I will give in his own language, Scripture quotation and all (laughter). I give his exact language
"In my opinion it [the slavery agitation] 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 forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States-old as well as
new, North as well as South."
In other words, Mr. Lincoln asserts as a fundamental principle of this
government, that there must be uniformity in the local laws and domestic
institutions of each and all the States of the Union; and he therefore in
107 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
"ites all the non-tlaveholding States to band together, organize as one
body, and make war upon slavery ill Kentucky, upon slavery in Virginia,
Apon slavery in the Carolinas, upon slavery in all the slaveholding States
in this Union, and tc persevere in that war until it shall be exterminated.
He then notified the slaveholding States to stand together as a unit and
make an aggressive war upon the free States of this Union with a view of
establishing slavery in them all; of forcing it upon Illinois, of forcing it
upon New York, upon New England, and upon every other free State, and
that they shall keep up the warfare until it has been formally established
in them all. In other words, Mr. Lincoln advocates boldly and clearly a
war of sections, a war of the North against the South, of the free States
against the slave States-a war of extermination-to be continued relentlessly, until the one or the other shall be subdued and all the States shall
either become free or become slave.
Now, my friends, I must say to you frankly, that I take bold, unqualified
issue with him upon that principle.  I assert that it is neither desirable
nor possible that there should be uniformity in the local institutions and
domestic regulations of the different States of this Union. The framers
of our government never contemplated uniformity in its internal concerns.
The fathers of the Revolution, and the sages who made the Constitution,
well understood that the laws and domestic lnstitutions which would suit
the granite hills of New Hampshire, wox!d be totally unfit for the rice
plantations of South Carolina (cheers); they well understood that the laws
which would suit the agricultural districts of Pennsylvania and New York,
would be totally unfit for the large mining regions of the Pacific, or the
lumber regions of Maine. (Bravo.) They well understood that the great
varieties of soil, of production, and of interests, in a republic as large as
this, required different local and donmestic regulations in each locality,
adapted to the wants and interests of each separate State (cries of
" bravo" and "good,") and for that reason it was provided in the federal
Constitution that the thirteen original States should remain sovereign and
supreme within their own limits in' regard to all that was local, aRd internal, and domestic, while the Federal Government should have certain speci.
fled powers which were general and uational, and could be exercised only
by the federal authority.  (Cheers)
108 - 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
[P UNIFORMITY WERE EITHER DESIRABLE OR POSSIBLE, HOW
IS IT TO BE ACCOMPLISHED?
How could this uniformity be accomplished if it were desirable and
possible. There is but one mode in which it could be obtained, and that
must be by abolishing the State legislatures, blotting out State sovereignty,
merging the rights and sovereignty of the States in one consolidated
empire, and vesting Congress with the plenary power to make all the police
regulations, domestic and local laws, uniform throughout the limits of the
Republic. When you shall have done this you will have uniformity. Then
the States will all be slave or all be free; then negroes will be free every.
where or nowhere; then you will have a Maine liquor law in every State
or none; then you will have uniformity in all things local and domestic
by the authority of the Federal Government. But, when you attain that
uniformity you will have converted these thirty-two sovereign, independent
States into one consolidated empire, with the uniformity of disposition
reigning triumphant  throughout the  length and breadth of the land.
("Hear," "hear," "bravo," and great applause.)
From this view of the case, my friends, I am driven irresistibly to the
conclusion that diversity, dissimilarity, variety in all our local and-domestic
institutions, is the great safeguard of our liberties; and that the framers
of our institutions were wise, sagacious, and patriotic when they made this
government a confederation of sovereign States with a legislature for each,
and conferred upon each legislature the power to make all local and domestic institutions to suit the people it represented, without interference
from any other State or from the general Congress of the Union. If we
expect to maintain our liberties we must preserve the rights and sovereignty
of the States, we must maintain and carry out that great principle of self.
government incorporated in the Compromise measures of 1850; indorsed
by the Illinois legislature in 1851; emphatically embodied and carried
out in the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and vindicated this year by the refusal to
bring Kansas into the Union with a constitution distasteful to her people.
(Cheers.)
NO CRUSADE AGAINST THE SUPREME COURT-THE DRED SCOTT
DECISION THE LAW OF THE LAND AND MUST BE OBEYED.
The other proposition discussed by Mr. Lincoln in his speech consists in
a crusade against the Supreme Court of the United States on account of
the Dred Scott decision.   On this question, also, I desire to say to you
109 
STEPiHEN A. DOUGLAS.
unequi,ocally, that I take direct and distinct issue with him.  I have no
warfare to make on the Supreme Court of the United States (Bravo),
either on account of that or any other decision which they have pronounced from that bench. (" Good, good," and enthusiastic applause.)
The Constitution of the United States has provided that the powers of government (and the constitution of each State has the same provision) shall
be divided into three departments, executive, legislative and judicial. The
right and the province of expounding the Constitution, and construing
the law, is vested in the judiciary, established by the Constitution. As a
lawyer, I feel at liberty to appear before the court and controvert any
principle of law while the question is pending before the tribunal; but when
the decision is made, my private opinion, your opinion, all other opinions
must yield to the majesty of that authoritative adjudication. (Cries of " it is
right," "good, good," and cheers.) I wish you to bear in mind that this involves a great principle, upon which our rights, and our liberty and our
property all depend. What security have you for your property, for your
reputation, and for your personal rights, if the courts are not upheld, and
their decisions respected when once firmly rendered by the highest
tribunal known to the Constitution? (Cheers.) I do not choose, therefore, to go into any argument with Mr. Lincoln in reviewing the various
decisions which the Supreme Court has made, either upon the Dred Scott
case, or any other.  I have no idea of appealing from the decision of the
Supreme Court upon a constitutional quesion to a tumultuous town-meeting.  (Cheers.)  I am aware that once an emient lawyer of this city, now
no more, said that the State of Illinois had the most perfect judicial system
in the world, subject to but one exception, which could be cured by a
slight amendment, and that amendment was to so change the law as to
allow an appeal from the decisions of the Supreme Court of Illinois, on all
constitutional questions, to two justices of the peace.  (Great laughter and
applause.) My friend, Mr. Lincoln, who sits behind me, reminds me that
that proposition was made when I was judge of the Supreme Court. Be
that as it may, I do not think that fact adds any greater weight or
authority to the suggestion. (Renewed laughter and applause.) It mat.
ters not with me who was on the bench, whether Mr. Lincoln or myself,
whether a Lockwood or a Smith, a Taney or a Marshall; the decision of
the highest tribunal known to the Constitution of the country must be final
until it has been reversed by an equally high authority.  (Cries of "bravo"
and applause.) Hence, I am opposed to this doctrine of Mr. Lilicoln, by
which he proposes to take an appeal from the decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States upon these high constitutional questions to a
Republican caucus.  (A voice —" Call it Freesoil," and cheers,)  Yes, or to
110 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
any other caucus or town-meeting, whether it be Republican, American, or
Democratic.  (Cheers.)  I respect the decisions of that august tribural; I
shall always bow in deference to them. I am a law-abiding man. I will
sustain the Constitution of my country as our fathers have made it. I will
yield obedience to the laws, whether I like them or not, as I find them on
the statute book.   I will sustain the judicial tribunals and constituted
authorities in all matters within the paler of their jurisdiction, as defined by
the Constitution. (Applause.)
OURS A WrITE MANE'S GOYERNMENT-NEGROES NOT CITIZENS.
But I am equally free to say that the reason assigned by Mr. Lincoln for
resisting the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case does not
in itself meet my approbation. He objects to it because that decision declared that a negro descended from African parents who were brought
here and sold as slaves, is not, and cannot be, a citizen of the United
States. He says it is wrong, because it deprives the negro of the benefits
of that clause of the Constitution which says that citizens of one State
shall enjoy all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several
States; in other words, he thinks it wrong because it deprives the negro
of the privileges, immunities, and rights of citizenship, which pertain, aecording to that decision, only to the white man. I am free to say to yore
that in my opinion this government of ours is founded on the white basis.
(Great applause.)  It was made by the white man, for the benefit of the
white man, to be administered by white men, in such a manner as they
should determine. (Cheers.) It is also true that a negro, or any other
man of an inferior race to a white man, should be permitted to enjoy, and
humanity requires that he should have all the rights, privile'ges and immunities which he is capable of exercising consistent with the safety of society.
I would give him every right and every privilege which his capacity would
enable him to enjoy, consistent with the good of the society in which he
lived. (" Bravo.") But you may ask me what are these rights and these
privileges. My answer is that each State must decide for itself the nature
and extent of these rights.  (" Hear, hear," and applause.)  Illinois has
'ecided for herself. We have decided that the negro shall not be a slave,
and we have at the same time decided that he shall not vote, or serve on
juries, or enjoy political privileges. I am content with that system of
policy which we have adopted for ourselves. (Cheers.) I deny the right
of ally other State to complain of our policy in that respect, or to interfere
with it, or to attempt to change it.  On the other hand, the,ae of sine
8
ill 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
has decided, as she had a right to under the Dred Scott decision, that in
that State a negro may vote on an equality with the white man.   The
sovereign power of Maine had the right to prescribe that rule for herself.
Illinois has no right to complain of Maine for conferring the right upon
negro suffrage, nor has Maine any right to interfere with, or complain of,
Illinois because she has denied negro suffrage. (" That's so," and cheers)
The State of New York has decided by her constitution that a negro may
vote, provided that he owns $250 worth of property, but not otherwise.
The rich negro can vote, but the poor one cannot.  (Laughter.)  Although
that distinction does not commend itself to my judgment, yet I assert that
the sovereign power of New York had a right to prescribe that form of the
elective franchise. Kentucky, Virginia, and other States have provided
that negroes, or a certain class of them in those States, shall be slaves,
having neither civil nor political rights. Without indorsing or condemning
the wisdom of that decision, I assert that Virginia has the same powers by
virtue of her sovereignty, to protect slavery within her limits as Illinois has
to banish it forever from our borders. (" Hear, hear," and applause.) I
assert the right of each State to decide for itself on all these questions, and
I do not subscribe to the doctrine of my friend, Mr. Lincoln, that
uniformity is either desirable or possible. I do not acknowledge that the
States must all be free or must all be slave.
I do not acknowledge that the negro must have civil and political rights
everywhere or nowhere. I do not acknowledge that the Chinese must
have the same rights in California that we would confer upon him here.
I do not acknowledge that the Coolie imported into this country must.
necessarily be put upon an equality with the white race. I do not acknowledge any of these doctrines of uniformity in the local and domestic
regulations in the different States. (" Bravo," and cheers.)
Thus you see, my fellow-citizens, that the issues between Mr. Lincoln and
myself, as respective candidates for the U. S. Senate, as made up, are
direct, unequivocal, and irreconcilable. He goes for uniformity in our
domestic institutions, for a war of sections, until one or the other shall be
subdued. I go for the great principle of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, the
right of the people to decide for themselves. (Senator Douglas was here
interrupted by the wildest applause; cheer after cheer rent the air; the
band struck up "Yankee Doodle;" rockets and pieces of fireworks blazea
forth; and the enthusiasm was so intense and universal that it was some
time before order could be restored and Mr. Douglas resume. The scene
at this period was glorious beyond description.)
112 
THE L1FE AND  SPEECHES OC 1F
lrANDS BY THlE DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION AND THE CINC1N
NATI PLATFORM.
My friends, you see that the issues are distinctly drawn. I stand by the
same platform that I have so often proclaimed to you and to the people of
linois heretofore.  (Cries of "That's true," and applause.) I stand by the
Democratic organization, yield obedience to its usages, and support its
regular nominations. (Intense enthusiasm.) I indorse and approve the
Cincinnati platform (renewed applause), and I adhere to and intend to
carry out as part of that platform the great principle of self-government,
which recognizes the right of the people in each State and Territory to
decide for themselves their domestic institutions.  ("Good, good," and
cheers.)
In conclusion, he denounces the "unholy alliance:"
Fellow-citizens, you now have before you the outlines of the propositions
which I intend to discuss before the people of Illinois during the pending
campaign. I have spoken without preparation, and in a very desultory
manner, and may have omitted some points which I desired to discuss,
and may have been less explicit on others than I could have wished.  I
lave made up my mind to appeal to the people against the combination
which has been made against me. (Enthusiastic applause.) The Republi.
can leaders have formed an alliance, an unholy, unnatural alliance, with a
portion of the federal officeholders.  I intend to fight that allied army
wherever I meet them. (Cheers.) I know they deny the alliance while
avowing the common purpose; but yet these men who are trying to divide
the Democratic party for the purpose of electing a Republican senator in
my place, are just as much the agents, the tools, the supporters of Mr.
Lincoln as if they were avowed Republicans, and expect their reward for
their services when the Republicans come into power.  (Cries of "That is
true," and cheers.) I shall deal with these allied forces just as the Rus.
sians dealt with the allies at Sebastopol. The Russians when they fired a
broadside at the common enemy did not stop to inquire whether it hit a
Frenchman, an Englishman or a Turk, nor will I stop (laughter and great
applause), nor shall I stop to inquire whether my blows hit the Republican
leaders or their allies, who are holding the federal offices and yet actingiat
concert with the Republicans to defeat the Democratic party and its nomi.
nees.  (Cheers, and cries of "Bravo.")  I do not include all of the federal
officeholders in this remark.  Such of them as are.Democrats and show
113 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
their Democracy by remaining inside of the Democratic organization and
supporting its nominees, I recognize as Democrats, but those who, having
been defeated inside of the organization, go outside and attempt to divide
and destroy the party in concert with the Republican leaders, have ceased
to be Democrats, and belong to the allied army whose avowed object is t(.
elect the Republican ticket by dividing and destroying the Democratic
party. (Cheers.)
Immediately after his reception at Chicago, Mr. Douglas
entered actively on his canvass over the entire State, making
more than one hundred speeches in less than four months,
anOd enduring an unparalleled amount of physical exertion
and fatigue. History fails to cite any public man who ever
received such continued ovations at the hAnds of his people
as greeted Mr. Douglas all through Isi Illinois campaign.
WYe make room for a letter which aide eared in one of the
Chicago papers of the day, descriptive of his journey from
that city to Bloomington, to fill his frst appointment, with
the remark that the same demonstrations of popular enthusi.
asm and manifestations of popular admiration and love met
Mr. Douglas everywhere through his canvass. The picture
of the correspondent does but bare justice to the facts as
they existed.
SENATOR DOUGLAS AMONG THE PEOPLE- AAiJAGE FROM CHI  CAGO TO SPRINGFIELDGREAT ENTHUSIASM ~LONG THE
LINE OF THE ST. LOUIS AND ALTON RAILROAD —GLORIOUS
DEMONSTRATIONS OF THE POPULAR FEELING.
LIOOMINGTON, gly 16, 15.
If there was ever any doubt that Senator Douglas possessu the popular
heart of the people of Illinois, that doubt has been dispelled to-day. His
passage from Chicago to this place has been a perfect ovation. There was
not a station or cottage that the train passed from.which there was not a
greeting and a "God speed" sent forth; and the evidences or popular feeling evinced in his favor are conclusive that the result in Nov,wnber will be
one of the most glorious triumphs of the Democracy ever actyed $Stat,,
114 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF           1
,I
Senator Douglas, as you are aware, left Chicago in the 9 o'clock train
this morning, on the St. Louis, Alton and Chicago Railroad, to meet an
appointment which he made at Springfield for to-morrow. The train which
bore him was tastefully decorated with flags, the engine being almost hid
beneath them, and banners were also displayed on the cars with the inscrip.
tion "Stephen A. Douglas, the Champion of Popular Sovereignty."  As
the train passed along, the crowds who had assembled to give a parting
cheer to the "Little Giant" performed their labor of love energetically and
well. The train was soon out of Chicago and flying along the track; and
now Mr. Douglas, having a few moments to devote to those "on board,"
shook hands and exchanged compliments with a number of impatient pas sengers who crowded around him, anxious to evince their respect and high
admiration of the man.
As the train swept through Bridgeport, the employees of the road sta tioned there had assembled together, and greeted Senator Douglas with
three hearty cheers.
A little incident occurred as we passed Bridgeport which is perhaps
worthy of notice. One of the flags with which the train was decorated
caught on the branches of a tree, and a gentleman seeing it, exclaimed,
"See, Judge Douglas, there is one of your flags waving from that tree."
"Yes," replied the Judge, "and before this campaign is over, my flags will
be seen waving from every tree in the State."
At every station on the road-at Brighton Course, Summit, Athens and
Lockport-the people were out waiting an opportunity to testify their
respect to their patriot senator; and not a little interest was added to these
demonstrations by the number of pretty girls and blooming matrons who
took part in them, and testified by the waving of handkerchiefs and smiles
of approval that there was one besides their lovers and husbands who had
a place in their hearts.
As the train approached Joliet, the shrill whistle of the engine to "break
up" was answered by the roar of artillery from the town; and when we
reached the station, about 11 o'clock, we found some four or five hundred
people awaiting us. The thunders of the guns were answered by the
cheers of welcome by the crowd, who pressed around the cars anxious to
get a glimpse of Senator Douglas. There being a delay at this place of
twenty minutes for dinner, the senator spent it in shaking hands with and
receiving the congratulations of those who had assembled to see him.
The beaming countenances of the sturdy yeomanry, whose faces were
lighted up with joy at meeting the man whom they delighted to honor,
showed that the heart felt what the mouth uttered. One fine looking
specimen of human nature, Whose strong, sturdy frame, and sunburnt
115 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
healthy cheek, bore testimony to his having spent the best part of his daft
in the open air, exclaimed, after shaking hands with the senator, "By
G-d, that did me good!"
At Joliet, a platform car, decorated with thirteen flags, and bearing a
twelve-pounder and gun-carriage, was hitched on to the train, and after
we left that town, as we approached each station, "Popular Sovereignty,"
as the gun was called, gave lively notice that we were on hand. At Elwood, a crowd was awaiting us, and as the train passed through, cheer
after cheer went up, whilst two or three individuals expressed their enthusiasm by the discharge of their revolvers.
As the train approached Wilmington, "Popular Sovereignty's" note was
echoed by a piece of artillery in the town, and as we reached the station,
we found the citizens, accompanied by a fine brass band, awaiting Senator
Douglas. The cars had hardly stopped, when a gentleman, whose head
was silvered o'er with age, jumped on the train, and seizing Senator Douglas by the hand, cried, "Welcome, Judge Douglas, welcome to Wilmington," and then three hearty cheers, such as only the farmers of the Prairie
State can give, rose in the air, and the people crowded around to shakF
Mr. Douglas by the hand. The train was delayed here several minutes,
order to afford the people an opportunity of seeing their senator.
At all the other stations-Stewart's Grove, Gardner, Dwight, Odell, Cay
nga, Pontiac, Rook Creek, Peoria Junction, Lexington, and Towanda, thu
people were out awaiting the train, and greeted Senator Douglas with lout
hurrahs. At each of these stations large numbers got on board for Bloom
ington.  As we approached Bloomington, "Popular Sovereignty" gave
notice that we were about, and his roar was answered by another of welcome from the town. About 5,000 people had assembled here to meet
Senator Douglas, and the whole town and surrounding country were pre.
sent on horseback, in vehicles, and on foot, to welcome his arrival. The
train was overrun with people who clambered on top of the cars, and tunbled in on all sides, and the enthusiasm manifested was similar to that
shown on his arrival at Chicago on Friday last. The thunders of the guns,
the music of the band, and the shouts of the multitude filled the air. The
scene can better be imagined than described. The crowd closed in around
the cars in an impenetrable mass, and, taking possession of Senator Douglas, they carried him over to the platform, where he received their personal welcomes. After some time spent in this manner, the senator was
placed in an open carriage, provided by the Committee of Arrangements,
and the escort, composed of the Bloomington Rifles, a cavalcade of horse.
men, and citizens on foot, headed by the Bloomington brass band, took
up its march for the London House where rooms had been engaged by
116 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES DF
the committee for their guest. Flags were displayed from the house, and
strips of muslin ran along the balconie, bearing the inscription, " S. A.
Douglas, the champion of Popular Sovereignty." Arriving at the house,
the procession was dismissed, and after giving three times three cheers for
Senator Douglas, gradually dispersed, to re-assemble at 71 o'clock, P.M.,
n the court-house square, for the purpose of listening to his address.
At 7 o'clock, the roar of the cannon, and the firing of rockets, the ringof the court-house bell, and the music of the band attached to the Bloomington Guards, who attended the meeting in uniform gave notice to the
people to assemble; and in half an hour the large square surrounding the
court-house was crowded with people, whilst Washington, Jefferson, and
Madison streets were in the same condition; and the windows and doors
of the houses fronting the square were thronged with ladies and gentlemen. There were about 10,000 persons in attendance, and the committee
of arrangements expected a much larger number, who were prevented
from coming in from the country by the heavy rain which fell in this
neighborhood all last night and to-day. The court-house was illuminated,
and a stage was erected on the west side for the meeting.
At about 8 o'clock, Allen Withers, Esq., chairman of the Committee of
Arrangements, called the meeting to order. Dr. E. R. Roe, in a very eloquent speech, welcomed Senator Douglas, and assured him, on behalf of
the people of McLean County, that his course, during the last session of
Congress, was fully approved by them, and that they were ready to show
that approval, in a substantial manner, at the polls in November next.
SPEECH AT BLOOMINGTON.
In the course of his speech at Bloomington, Mr. Douglas
referred to the Compromise measures of 1850, and the in.
structions of the Illinois legislature of 1851 to carry out the
same principle of self-government in the organization of new
Territories, as follows:
Illinois stands proudly forward as a State which early took her position
in favor of the principle of popular sovereignty, as applied to the Territories of the United States.  When the Compromise measures of 1850 passed,
predicated upon that principle, you recollect the excitement which prevailed
throughout the northern portion of this State. I vindicated those measures then, and defended myself for having voted for them, upon the groun4
11T 
8S'TEPHEN A. DC UGLAS.
that they embodied the principle that every people ought to have the
privilege of forming and regulating their own institutions-to suit them.
selves-that each State had that right, and I saw no reason why it should
not be extended to the Territories. When the people of Illinois had an
opportunity of passing judgment upon those measures, they iridorsed
them by a vote of their representatives in the legislature-sixty-one in
the affirmative, and only four in the negative-in which they asserted that
the principle embodied in the measures was the birthright of freemen, the
gift of leaveii, a principle vindicated by our Revolutionary fathers, and
that no limitation should ever be placed upon it, either in the organization
of a Territorial government, or the admission of a State into the Union.
That resolution still stands unrepealed on the journals of the legislature
of Illinois. In obedience to it, and in exact conformity with the principle,
I brought in the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, requiring that the people should
be left perfectly free in the formation of their institutions, and in the organization of their government. I now submit to you whether I have not
in good faith redeemed that pledge, that the people of Kansas should be
left perfectly free to form and regulate their institutions to suit themselves.
("You have," and cheers.) And yet, while no man can rise in any crowd
and deny that I have been faithful to my principles and redeemed my
pledge, we find those who are struggling to crush and defeat me, for the
very reason that I have been faithful in carrying out those measure&
("They can't do it," and great cheers.)  We find the Republican leaders
forming an alliance with professed Lecompton men to defeat every Democratic nominee, and elect Republicans in their places, and aiding and de.
fending them in order to help them break down Anti-Lecompton  men
whom they acknowledge did right in their opposition to Lecomptov
(" They can't do it.") The only hope that Mr. Lincoln has of defeating mt
for the Senate rests in the fact that I was faithful to my principles, and
that he may be able, in consequence of that fact, to form a coalition with
Lecompton men who wish to defeat me  for that fidelity.  ("They will
never do it. Never in the State of Illinois"-and cheers.)
He again refers to the coalition between the federal oficeholders and the abolitionists, to break down the Democratic
party
This is one element of strength upon which he relies to accomplish his
object. He hopes he can secure the few men claiming to be friends of the
Lecompton constitution, and for that reason you will find he does not say
a word against the Lecompton constitution or its supporters.   He is as
il8 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
6.lent as the grave upon that subject.  Behold Mr. Lincoln courting LetorD
ton votes, n order that he may go to the Senate as the representative of
Republican principles!  (Laughter.)  You know that the alliance exists
I think you will find that it will ooze out before the contest is over.
("That's my opinion," and cheers.)
Every Republican paper takes ground with my Lecompton enemies, encouraging them, stimulating them in their opposition to me, and styling
my friends bolters from the Demooratic party, and their Lecompton ailies
the true Democratic party of the  country.  If they think that they can
mislead and deceive'the.people of Illinois, or the Democracy of Illinois, by
that sort of an unnatural and unholy alliance, I think they show very little
sagacity, or give the people very little credit for intelligence.  (" That's so,"
and cheers.) It must be a contest of principle. Either the radical abolition principles of Mr. Lincoln must be maintained, or the strong, constitutional, national Democratic principles with which I am identified, must be
carried out.
There can be but two great political parties in this country. The contest
this year and in 1860, must necessarily be between the Democracy and the
Republicans, if we can judge from present indications. My whole life has
been identified with the Democratic party. (Cheers.) I have devoted all my
energies to advocating its principles, and sustaining its organization. Is
this State the party was never better united and more harmonious than at
this time. (Cheers.) The State Convention which assembled on the 2d
of April, and nominated Fondey and French, was regularly called by the 
State Central Committee, appointed by the previous State Convention for
that purpose. The meetings in each county in the State for the appointment of delegates to the convention, were regularly called by the county
committees, and the proceedings in every county in the State, as well as
in the State Convention, were regular in all respects,. No convention was
ever more harmonious in its action, or showed a more tolerant and just
spirit toward brother Democrats. The leaders of the party there assembled declared their unalterable attachment to the time-honored principles
and organization of the Democratic party, and to the Cincinnati platform.
They declared that that platform was the only authoritative exposition of
Democratic principles, and that it must so stand until changed by another
National Convention; that in the meantime they would make no new tests,
and submit to none; that they would proscribe no Democrat, nor permit the
proscription of Democrats because of their opinions upon Lecomptonism,
or upon any other issue which has arisen; but would recognize all men as
Democrats who remained inside of the organization, preserved the usages
of the party, and supported its nominees.  (Great applause.)  These b)lt
lip 
TEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
mng Democrats who now claim to be the peculiar friends of the national
administration, and have formed an alliance with Mr. Lincoln and the Republicans, for the purpose of defeating the Democratic party, have ceased
to claim fellowship with the Democratic organization, have entirely separated themselves from it, and are endeavoring to build up a faction i.ithe
State, not with the hope or expectation of electing any one man who professes to be a Democrat, to office in any county in the State, but merely to
secure the defeat of the Democratic nominees, and the election of Republicans in their places. What excuse can any honest Democrat have for
abandoning the Democratic organization, and joining'with the Republicans ("None!") to defeat our nominees, in view of the platform established by the State Convention? They cannot pretend that they were proscribed because of their opinions upon Lecompton or any other question,
for the Convention expressly declared that they recognize all as good Democrats who remained inside of the organ;.zation, and abided by the nominations.  If the question is settled, or is to be considered as finally dis
posed of by the vote on the 3d of August, what possible excuse can any
good Democrat make for keeping up a division for the purpose of pro.
strating his party, after that election is over, and the controversy has ter
miniated.
DIRED SOoTT DECISION —NEGRO EQUALITY.
But I must now bestow a few words upon Mr. Lincoln's main objection
to the Dred Scott decision. He is not going to submit to it. Not that he
is going to make war upon it with force of arms. But he is going to appeal
and reverse it in some way; he cannot tell us how. I reckon not by a writ
of error, because I do not know where he would prosecute that, except
before an Abolition Society. ("That's it," and applause.) And when he
appeals, he does not exactly tell us to whom he will appeal, except it be to
the Republican party, and I have yet to learn that the Republican party,
under the Constitution, has judicial powers; but he is going to appeal from
it and reverse it either by an act of Congress, or by turning out the judges, or
in some other way. And why? Because he says thatthathat decision deprives
the negro of the benefit ofthat clause of the Constitution of the United States
which entitles the citizens of each State to all the privileges and immuni
ties of citizens of the several States. Well, it is very true that the decision
does have that effect. By deciding that a negro is not a citizen, of course
it d3nies to him the rights and privileges awarded to citizens of the United
States. It is this that Mr. Lincoln will not submit to. Why? For the
palpable reason that he wishes to confer upon the negro all the righw,
120 
THE LIFE AND S P E ECHES O F
privileges, and immunities of citizens of the several States. I will not
quarrel with Mr. Lincoln for his views on that subject. I have no doubt
that he is conscientious in them. I have not the slightest idea but that he
conscientiously believes that a negro ought to enjoy and exercise all the
rights and privileges given to white men; but I do not agree with him, and
hence I cannot concur with him. I believe that this government of ours
was formed on the white basis. (Prolonged cheering.) I believe that it
was established by white men-(applause)- by men of European birth and
descended of European races, for the benefit of white men and their posterity in all time to come. (" Hear, hear.") I do not believe that it was
the design or intention of the signers of the Declaration of Independence
or the framers of the Constitution to include negroes or other inferior
races with white men as citizens. (Cheers.) Our fathers had at that day
seen the evil consequences of conferring civil and political rights upon the
negro in the Spanish and French colonies on the American continent, and
the adjacent islands. In Mexico, in Central America, in South America,
and in the West India Islands, where the negro, and men of all colors and
all races are put on an equality by law, the effect of political amalgamation
can be seen. Ask any of those gallant young men in your own county,
who who went to Mexico to fight the battles of their country, in what
friend Lincoln considers an unjust and unholy war, and hear what they
will tell you in regard to the amalgamation of races in that country. Amalgamation there, first political, then social, has led to demoralization and
degradation until it has reduced the people below the point of capacity for
self-government. Our fathers knew what the effect of it would be, and
from the time they planted foot on the American continent, not only those
who landed at Jamestown, but at Plymouth Rock and all other points on
the coast, they pursued the policy of confining civil and political rights to
the white race, and excluding the negro in all cases Still Mr. Lincoln conscientiously believes that it is his duty to advocate negro citizenship. He
wants to give the negro the privileges of citizenship. He quotes Scripture
again, and says: "As your Father in Heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect," and he applies that Scriptural quotation to all classes, not that he
expects us all to be as perfect as our Master, but as nearly perfect as possible. In other words, he is willing to give the negro an equalty under
the law, in order that he may approach as near perfection or an equality
with the white man as possible. To this same end he quotes the Declarattion of Independence in these words: "We hold these truths to be selfevident that all men were created equal, and endowed by their Creator
with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," and goes on to arg'fe that the negro wab acludpd, or
121 
.TBPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
Intended to be included, in.that declaration by the signers of the raper.
He says that by the Declaration of Independence, therefore, all kinds of
men, negroesincluded, were created equal, and endowed by their Creator
with certain inalienable rights, and further, that the right of the negro to
be on an equality with the white man is a Divine right conferred by the
Almighty, and rendered inalienable according to the Declaration of Inde pendence. Hence no human law or constitution can deprive the negro of
that equality with the white man to which he is entitled by Divine law.
("Higher law.")  Yes, higher law.  Now, I do not question Mr. Lincoln's
sincerity on this point. He believes that the negro by the Divine law is
created the equal of the white man, and that no human law can deprive
him of that equality thus secured; and he contends that the negro ought,
therefore, to have all the rights and privileges of citizenship on an equality
with the white man. In order to accomplish this, the first thing that wotrld
have to be done in this State would be to blot out of our State Constitution
that clause which prohibits negroes from coming into this State and making
it an African colony, and permit them to come and spread over these charm.
ing prairies until in midday they shall look black as night. When our
friend Lincoln gets all his colored brethren around him here, he will then
raise them to perfection as fast as possible, and place them on an equality
with the white man, first removing all legal restrictions, because they are
our equals by Divine law and there should be no such restrictions. He
wants them to vote. I am opposed to it. If they had a vote I reckon they
would all vote for him in preference to me, entertaining the views I do.
(Laughter.) But that matters not. The position he has taken on this
question not only presents him as claiming for them the right to vote, but
their right, under the Divine law and the Declaration of Independence, to
be elected to office, to become members of the legislature, to go to Congress, and to become governors, or United States senators (laughter and
cheers), or judges of the Supreme Court; and I suppose that when they
control that court that they will probably reverse the Dred Scott decision.
(Laughter.) He is going to bring negroes here, and give them the right
of citizenship, the right of voting, the right of holding office and sitting on
juries, and what else? Why, he would permit them to marry, would he
not? and if he gives them that right, I suppose he will let them marry
whom they please, provided they marry their equals. (Laughter.) If the
Divine law declares that the white man is the equal of the negro woman;
that they are on a perfect equality; I suppose he admits the right of the
negro woman to marry the white man. (Renewed laughter.) In other
words, lii doctrine that the negro by Divine law is placed on a perfect
equality with the white man, and that that equality is recognized by the
'122 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
Declaralion of Independence, leads him necessarily to establishling negro
equality under the law; but whether even then they would be so in fact,
would depend upon the degree of virtue and intelligence they possessed,
and certain other qualities that are matters of taste rather than of law.
(Laughter.)  I do not understand Mr. Lincoln as saying that he expects to
make them our equals socially, or by intelligence, nor, in fact, as citizens,
but that he wishes to make them equal under the law, and then say to them
"as your Master in Heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect."  Well, I confess
to you, my fellow-citizens, that I am utterly opposed to that system of
abolition philosophy. (" So am I," and cheers.)
IND YOUR OWN BUSINESS AND LET YOUR NEIGHBORS
ALOlNE-CLAY AND WEBSTER.
In Kentucky they will not give a negro any political rights or any civil
rights. I shall not argue the question whether Kentucky in so doing
has decided right or wrong, wisely or unwisely. It is a question for
Kentucky to decide for herself. I believe that the Kentuckians have
consciences as well as ourselves; they have as keen a perception of
their religious, moral and social duties as we have, and I am willing that
they shall decide this slavery question for themselves, and be accountable to
their God for their action.  It is not for me to arraign them for what they
do. I will not judge them lest I shall be judged. Let Kentucky mind her
own business, and take care of her negroes, and we attend to our own
affairs, and take care of our negroes, and we will be the best of friends;
but if Kentucky attempts to interfere with us, or we with her, there will be
strife, there will be discord, there will be relentless hatred, there will be
everything butfraternal feeling and brotherly love. It is not necessary
that you should enter Kentucky and interfere in that State, to use the
language of Mr. Lincoln. It is- just as offensive to interfere fiom this
State, or send your missiles over there. I care not whether an enemy, if
he is going to assault us, shall actually come into our State or come along
the line and throw his bomb-shells over to explode in our midst. Suppose
England should plant a battery on the Canadian side of the Niagara River,
opposite Buffalo, and throw bomb-shells over, which would explode in
Main street, in that city, and destroy the buildings, and that when we protested, she should say, in the language of Mr. Lincoln, that she never
dreamed of coming into the United States to interfere with us, and that
she was just throwing her bombs over the line from her own side, which
lshe had a right to do, would that explanation satisfy us?  (" No;" "Strike
him again.")  So it is with Mr. Lincoln.  Ie is not going into Kentucky
123 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
out he will'plan  6is batteries on this side of the Ohio, where he; saft
and secure for a retreat, and will then throw his bomb-shells-his abolition
documents-over the river, and will carry on a political warfare and get
up strife between the North and South until he elects a sectional President,
reduces the South to the condition of dependent colonies, raises the negro
to an equality, and forces the South to submit to the doctrine that a house
divided against itself cannot stand, that the Union divided into half slave
States and half free cannot endure, that they must all be slave or they
must all be free, and that as we in the North are in the majority we will
not permit them to be all slave, and, therefore, theyin the South must
consent to the States'all being free. (Laughter.) Now, fellow-citizens, I
submit whether these doctrines are consistent with the peace and harmony
of this Union.  (" No, no.")  I submit to you, whether they are consistent
with our duty as citizens of a common confederacy; whether they are
consistent with the principles which ought to govern brethren of the same
family. I recognize all the people of these States, North and South, East
and West, old or new, Atlantic and Pacific, as our brethren, flesh of one
flesh, and I will do no act unto them that I would not be willing they
should do unto us. I would apply the same Christian rule to the States of
this Union that we are taught to apply to individuals, "do unto others as
you would have others do unto you," and this would secure peace. Why
bhould this slavery agitation be kept up? Does it benefit the white man
or the slave? Who does it benefit except the Republican politicians, who
use it as their hobby to ride into office. (Cheers.) Why, I repeat, should
it be continued? Why cannot we be content to administer this govern.
ment as it was made-a confederacy of sovereign and independent'States.
Let us recognize the sovereignty and independence of each State, refrain
from interfering with the domestic institutions and regulations of other
States, permit the Territories and new States to decide their institutions
for themselves as we did when we were in their condition; blot out these
lines of North and South and resort back to those lines of State boundaries
which the Constitution has marked out and engraved upon the face of
the country; have no other dividing lines but these and we will be one
united, harmonious people, with fraternal feelings and no discord or dissension. (Cheers.)
The&  are my views and these are the principles to which I have devoted
all my energies since 1850, when I acted side by side with the immnortal Clay and the godlike Webster in that mhemorable struggle in which
Whigs and Democrats united upon a common platform of patriotism ande
the Constitution, throwing aside partisan feelings in order. to restore peace
and harmony to a distracted country. And whlen I stood beside the death
124 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
bed of Mr. Clay and heard him refer with feelings and emotions of the
deepest solicitude to the welfare of the country, and saw that he looked
upon the principle embodied in the great Compromise measures of 1850,
the principle of the Nebraska Bill, the doctrine of leaving each State and
Territory free to decide its institutions for itself, as the only means by
which the peace of the country could be preserved, and the Union perpetua.'ed, i pledged him, on that death-bed of his, that so long as I lived
my ecergies should be devoted to the vindication of that principle, and of
his fame as connected with it. (" Hear, hear," and great enthusiasm.) I
gave the same pledge to the great expounder of the Constitution, he who
has been called the "godlike Webster." I looked up to Clay and him as
a son would to a father, and I call upon the people of Illinois, and the
people of the whole Union to bear testimony that never since the sod has
been laid upon the graves of those eminent statesmen have I failed on any
occasion to vindicate the principle with which the last great, crowning acts
of their lives were identified, or to vindicate their names whenever they
have been assailed; and now my life and energy are devoted to this great
work as the means of preserving this Union. (Cheers.) This Uniion can
only be preserved by maintaining the fraternal feeling between the North
and the South, the East and the West. If that good feeling can be preserved the Union will be as perpetual as the fame of its great founders. It
can be maintained by preserving the sovereignty of the States, the right of
each State and each Territory to settle its domestic concerns for itself, and
the duty of each to refrain from interfering with the other in any of its
local or domestic inistitutioiis. Let that be done and the Union will be
perpetual; let that be done, and this republic, which began with thirteen
States, and which now numbers thirty-two, which when it began only
extended from the Atlantic to the Mississippi but now reaches to the
Pacific, may yet expand North and South until it covers the whole cAnti.
nent and becomes one vast ocean-bound confederacy. (Great cheering.)
Then, my friends, the path of duty, of honor, of patriotism is plain.
There are a few simple principles to be preserved. Bear in mind the
dividing line between State rights and federal authority; let us maintain
the great principles of popular sovereignty, of State rights, and of the
Federal Union as the Constitution has nade it, and this republic will
endure forever.
UNITY OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
In the course of Mr. Douglas' speech at Edwardsville, on
the 6th of August, an old Democrat sprang to his feet and
125 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
exclaimed, "These are the principles of all us Dou4z Der&
crats!"  To which Mr. Douglas replied:
My friend-you will pardon me for telling you that there is no such
term in the Democratic vocabulary as Douglas Democrats. Let there be no
divisions in our ranks-no such distinction as Douglas Democrats, or
Buchanan Democrats, or any other peculiar kind of Democrats. Let us
retain the old name of Democrat, and under that name recognize all men
as good Democrats who stand firmly by the principles and organization of
the party, and support its regular nominations. Let us have no divisions in
our ranks on account of past differences, but treating bygones as bygones
let the party be a unit in the accomplishment of the great mission which it
has to perform.
This sentiment was received with rapturous applause.
SPEECH AT WINCHESTER-TOUCHING INCIDETS.
At Winchester, where he settled when he first emigrated
to Illinois, in 1833, he responded to the address of welcome,
thus:
To say that I am profoundly impressed with the keenest gratitude for
the kind and cordial welcome you have given me, in the eloquent and too
partial remarks which have been addressed to me, is but a feeble expres.
sion of the emotions of my heart. There is no spot, in this vast globe
which fills me with such emotions as when I come to this place, and recognize the faces of my old and good friends who now surround me and bid
me welcome. Twenty-five years ago I entered this town on foot, with my
coat upon my arm, without an acquaintance in a thousand miles, and without knowing where I could get money to pay a week's board. Here!
made the first six dollars I ever earned in my life, and obtained the first
regular occupation that I ever pursued. For the first time in my life I
then felt that the responsibilities of manhood were upon me, although 1
was under age, for I had none to advise with, and knew no one upon
whom I had a right to call for assistance or for friendship.  Here I found
the then settlers of the country my friends-my first start in life was taken
here, not only as a private citizen, but my first election to public office by
the people was conferred upon me by those whom I am now addressing,
aid by their fathers. A quarter of a century has passes, and that pens
126 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
aless boy stands before you, with his heart full and gushing with the sen
timents which such associations and recollections necessarily inspire.
In the midst of that portion of his speech, ill which he
was vindicating the doctrine of popular sovereignty, applicable to the Territories, one of his early friends exclaimed, in a
loud voice, "Stephen, you shall be the next Prestdent;" to
which Mr. Douglas instantly replied:
My friend, I appreciate the kindness of heart which makes you put forth
that prediction, but will assure you that it is more important to this country, to your children and to mine, that the great principles which we are
now discussing shall be carried out in good faith by the party, than it is
that I or any other man shall be President of the United States. (Three
cheers.)  I am also free to say to you that whenever the question arises
with me whether I shall be elevated to the Presidency or any other high
position, by the sacrifice of my principles, I will stand by my principles
and allow the position to take care of itself. (Three cheers.) I have
always admired that great sentiment put forth by the illustrious Clay, that
he would rather be right than be President. (" Good.") I say to you that
I have more pride in my history connected with the vindication of this
great principle of popular sovereignty than I would have in a thousand
Presidencies. (Three cheers.)
Mr. Douglas, again advocating that "by-gones be bygones," when Kansas rejected the English bill, said, in a
speech at Pittsfield:
By the rejection of the Lecompton constitution the controversy which
it caused is terminated forever, and there will be no cause for reviving it,
and it never will be revived unless it is brought up in an improper and
mischievous manner, for improper and mischievous purposes. I say that
the controversy can never rise again if we act properly, and for this reason: the President of the United States, in his annual message, declared
that he regretted that the Lecompton constitution had not been submitted
to the people. I joined him in that regret, and thus far we agreed. He
further declared in that message, that it was a just and sound principle to
require the submission of every constitution to the people who were to
live under it, and to this I also subscribed. He then declared that, in his
epiion, the example set in the Minnesota case, whereto Congress required
9
127 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
the submission of the constitution to the people, should be followed fere
after forever as a rule of action; in which opinion I heartily concurred
So far we agreed perfectly, and were together. Well, then, what did we
differ about? He said that while it was a sound principle that the constitution should be submitted to the people, and while he hoped.that hereafter Congress would always require it to be done, yet that there were such
circumstances connected with Kansas as rendered it politic and expedient
to admit her unconditionally under the Lecompton constitution. I differed
with him on that one point, and it was the whole matter at issue between
him and me, hit friends and mine. That point is now deciced. The people of Kansas have set it at rest forever, and I trust that he is satisfied
with their decision as well as myself. That being the case, why should we
not come together in the future and stand firmly by his recommendationthat hereafter Congress shall, as in the Minnesota case, require the constitution of all new States to be submitted to the people in all cases? If we
only do stand by that principle in the future, another Lecompton controversy can never arise-the friends of self-government will then all be
united, and there will be no more discord or dissensions in our ranks
Why not rally on that plank as the common plank in the platform of our
party, upon which not only all Democrats, but all national men, all friends
of popular sovereignty, can stand together, shoulder to shoulder.
THI  FREEPORT SPEECH.
In the joint debate at Freeport, Mr. Lincoln propounded
to Mr. Douglas a series of questions, and among them was
the following, to which he desired an explicit reply:
" Can the people of a Territory of the United States in
any lawful way, against the wishes of any citizen of the
United States, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the
formation of at State constitution?"
To this question Mr. Douglas gave an affirmative reply, in
accordance with the opinions which he had so often expressed, in 1850, during the pendency of the Compromise
measures, and in 1854, in support of the Kansas-Nebraska
Bill, and in harmony with the known opinions of the most
eminent men of the Democratic party, and especially of
128 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES8 OF
General Cass, in his Nicholson letter, and of Mr. Buchanan,
in his letter accepting the Cincinnati nomination.
It being a joint debate, in which his time was limited, and
having a large number of other questions to answer, Mr.
Douglas contented himself with a direct and unequivocal
answer, without entering into allyargument in support of the
propositions.   His  reply, as published in the  unrevised
report of the debate, is as follows:
The next question propounded to me by Mr. Lincoln is, can the. people
of a Territory in any lawful way against the wishes of any citizen of the
United States, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of
a State constitution? I answer emphatically, as Mr. Lincoln has heard
me answer a hundred times from every stump in Illinois, that in my opinion
the people of a Territory can, by lawful means, exclude slavery firom their
limits prior to the formation of a State constitution.  (Enthusiastic applause.) Mr. Lincoln knew that I had answered that question over and
over again. He beard me argue the Nebraska Bill on that principle all
over the State in 1854, in 1855 and in 1856, and he has no excuse for pre.
tending to be in doubt as to my position on that question. It matters not
what way the Supreme Court may hereafter decide as to the abstract question whether slavery may or may not go into a Territory under the consti.
tution; the people have the lawful means to introduce it or exclude it as
they please, for the reason that slavery cannot exist a day or an hour any.
where, unless it is supported by local police regulations. (Right, right.)
Those police regulations can only be established by the local legislature,
and if the people are opposed to slavery they will elect representatives to
that body who will by unfriendly legislation effectually prevent the intro.
Auction of it into their midst. If, on the contrary, they are for it, their
legislation will favor its extension. Hence, no matter what the decision
of the Supreme Court may be on that abstract question, still the right of
the people to make a slave Territory or a free Territory is perfect and com.
plete under the Nebraska Bill. I hope Mr. Lincoln deems my answer satisfactory on that point.
MR. DOUGLAS AT ALTON-REBUKES EXECUTWIE DICTATION.
And now this warfare is mnade on me because I would not surrender my
convictions of duty, because I would not abandon my constituency, and re
oeive the orders of the Executive authorities how I should vote in the
129 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
Senate of the United States.  (" Never do it," three cheers, etc.)  I lola
that an attempt to control the Senate on the part of the Executive is subversive of the principles of our Constitution.   ("That's right.")  The
Executive department is independent of the Senate, and the Senate is in
dependent of the President. In matters of legislation the President has a
veto on the action of the Senate, and in appointments and treaties the
Senate has a veto on the President.  He has no more right to tell me how
I shall vote on his appointments, than I have to tell him whether he shall
veto or approve a bill that'the Senate has passed. Whenever you recognize the right of the Executive to say to a senator, " Do this, or I will take
off the heads of your friends," you convert this government from a
republic into a despotism. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) Whenever you
recognize the right of a President to say to a member of Congress, "Vote
as I tell you, or I will bring a power to bear against you at home which
will crush you," you destroy the independence of the representative, and
convert him into a tool of Executive power.  (" That's so," and applause.)
I resisted this invasion of the constitutional rights of a senator, and 1
intend to resist it as long as I have a voice to speak, or a vote to give.
Yet, Mr. Buchanan cannot provoke me to abandon one iota of Democratic
principles out of revenge or hostility to his course. (" Good, good, and
three cheers for Douglas.") I stand by the platform of the Democratio
party, and by its organization, and support its nominees.  If there are
any who choose to bolt, the fact only shows that they are not as good
Democrats as I am.  ("That's so," " good," and applause.)
UNION OF NATIONAL MEN FOR SAKE OF THE UNION.
My friends, there never was a time when it was as important for the
Democratic party, for all national men, to rally and stand together as it is
to-day. We find all sectional men giving up past differences and combining on the one question of slavery; and when we find sectional men
thus uniting, we should unite to resist them and their treasonable designs.
Such was the case in 1850, when Clay left the quiet and peace of his home
and again entered upon public life to quell agitation and restore peace to a
distracted Union.  Then we Democrats, with Cass at our heat,, Welcomed
Henry Clay, whom the whole nation regarded as having been preserved by
God for the times. He became our leader in that great fight, and we
rallied around him the same as the Whigs rallied around old Hickory
I 1832, to put  down  nullification.   (Cheers.)'Ihus you  see that
130 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
wbilst -Whigs and Democrats fought fearlessly in old times about
banks, the tariff distribution, the specie circular, and the sub-treasury,
all united as a band of brothers when the peace, harmony, or integ rity of the Union was imperilled.  (Tremendous applause.)  It was so
inl 1850, when abolitionism had even so far divided this country, North and
South, as to endanger the peace of the Union; Whigs and Democrats
united in establishing the Compromise measures of that year, and restoring
tranquillity and good feeling. These measures passed on the joint action
of the two parties. They rested on the great principle that the people of
each State and each Territory should be left perfectly free to form and
regulate their domestic institutions to suit themselves. You Whigs and
we Democrats justified them on that principle. In 1854, when it became
necessary to organize the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, I brought
forward a bill for the purpose on the same principle. In the Kansas Nebraska Bill you find it declared to be the true intent and meaning of the
act not to legislate slavery into any State or Territory, nor to exclude it
therefrom; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and
regulate their domestic institutions in their own way.  (" That's so," and
cheers.) I stand on that same platform in 1858 that I did in 1850, in
1854 and 1856.
The Washington "Union," pretending to be the organ of the administration, in the number of the 5th of this month, devotes three columns and a
half to establish these propositions: First, that Douglas, in his FreepoIt
speech, held the same doctrine that he did in his Nebraska Bill in 1854;
second, that in 1854 Dou,glas justified the Nebraska Bill, upon the ground
that it was based upon the same principle as Clay's Compromise measures
of 1850.  The "Union" thus proved that Douglas was the same in 1858
that he was in 1856, in 1854 and in 1850, consequently argued that he was
never a Democrat. (Great laughter.) Is it not funny that I was never a
Democrat? (Renewed laughter.) There is no pretence that I have changed
a hair's breadth.  The "Union" proves, by my speeches, that I explained
the Compromise measures of 1850 just as I do now, and that I explained
the Kansas and Nebraska Bill in 1854 just as I did in my Freeport speech,
and yet says that I am not a Democrat, and cannot be trusted, because I
have not changed during the whole of that time. It has occurred to me
that in 1854 the author of the Kansas and Nebraska Bill was considered a
pretty good Democrat.  (Cheers.)  It has occurred to me that in 1856,
when I was exerting every nerve and every energy for James Buchanan,
standing on the same platform then that I do now, that I was a pretty
good Democrat. (Renewed applause.) They now tell me that I am not a
131 
S TEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
Democrat, because I assert that the people of a Territory, as well as thes
of a State, have the right to decide for themselves whether slavery can ot
cannot exist in such Territory. Let me read what James Buchanan said oil
that point when he accepted the Democratic nomination for the Presidency
in 1856. In his letter of acceptance, he used the following language:
"The recent legislation of Congress respecting domestic slavery, derived, as it has
ceen, from the original and pure fountain of legitimate political power, the will of the
majority, promise ere long to allay the dangerous excitement. This legislation is
founded upon principles as ancient as free government itself, and in accordance with
them, has simply declared that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, shall decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits."
Dr. Hope will there find my answer to the question:e propounded to
me before I commenced speaking.  (Vociferous shouts of applause.)  Of
course no man will consider it an answer who is outside of the Democratic
organization, bolts Democratic nominations, and indirectly aids to put
Abolitionists into power over Democrats. But whether Dr. Hope considers it an answer or not, every fair-minded man will see that James
Buchanan has answered the question, and has asserted that the people of
a Territory, like those of a State, shall decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits. I answer specifically, if
you want a further answer, and say, that while under the decision of the
Supreme court, as recorded in the opinion of Chief Justice Taney, slaves
are property like all other property, and can be carried into a Territory of
the United States the same as any other description of property; yet, when
you get them there, they are subject to the local law of the Territory just
like all other property. You will find in a recent speech, delivered by that
able and eloquent statesman, Hoti. Jefferson Davis, at Portland, Maine, that
he took the same view of this subject that I did in my Freeport speech
He there said:
"If the inhabitants of any Territory should refuse to enact such laws and police reg
lotions as would give security to their property or to his, it would be rendered more or
less valueless, in proportion to the difficulties of holding it without such protection. In
the case of property in the labor of man, or what is usually called slave property, the
insecurity would be so great that the owner could not ordinarily retain it. Therefore,
though the right would remain, the remedy being withheld, it would follow that the
owner would be practically debarred, by the circumstances of the case, firom taking
slave property into a Territory where the sense of the inhabitants was opposed to its
introduction.  So much for the oft-repeated fallacy of forcing slavery upon any cow
munity."
You will also find that the distinguished speaker of  the present Houso
of Representatives, lion. James L. Orr, construed the KawAs and Ne,
132 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
braska Bil in this same way in 1856, and also that that great intellect of
the South. Alex. H. Stevens, put the same construction upon it in Congress that I did in my Freeport speech. The whole South are rallying to
the support of the doctrine that, if the people of a Territory want slavery,
they have a right to have it; and if they do not want it, that no power on
earth can force it upon them. I hold that there is no principle on earth
more sacred to all the friends of freedom than that which says that no in.
stitution, no law, no constitution, should be forced on an unwilling people
contrary to their wishes; and I assert that the Kansas and Nebraska Bill
contains that principle.  It is the great principle contained in thai ill.  It
is the principle on which James Buchanan was made President. Without
that principle he never would have been made President of the United
States.   I will never violate or abandon that doctrine if I have to stand
alone. (Hurrah for Douglas.) I have resisted the blandishments and
threats of power on the one side, and seduction on the other, and have
stood immovably  for that principle, fighting for it when assailed by
northern mobs, or threatened by southern hostility.  ("That's the truth,"
and cheers.) I have defended it against the North and the South, and I
will defend it against whoever assails it, and I will follow it wherever its
logical conclusions lead me.  (" So will we all," "hurrah for Douglas.")  I
say to you that there is but one hope, one safety for this country, and that
is to stand immovably by that principle which declares the right of -each
State and each Territory to decide these questions for themselves.   (Hear
him, hear him.) This government was founded on that principle, and
must be administered in the same sense in which it was founded.
The Democracy of Illinois determined at the opening of
their campaign, in view of their relations toward the admi_a,+
tration, to invite no speakers from abroad to participate in
the labor of their canvass. In the event of any gentlemen
volunteering their services, they would be most gratefully
accepted. A few exceptions, however, were made to this
rule, at the suggestion of friends in other States. Private
wetters had been received by numerous gentlemen in the
State, to the effect that Vice-President Breckinridge warmly
sympathized with the Illinois Democracy in their fierce struggle with their confederated enemy, and that his feelings were
painfully exercised by the imminent dangers that environed
133 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
the prospects of Mr. Douglas' reelection to the Senate. In.
deed, it was suggested that the Vice-President had expressed
a desire to lend the weight of his great talents and exertions
in the good cause; and, if invited, would cheerfully engage
in the canvass, as he had done before when himself a candidate in the contest of 1856. Accordingly, invitations were
sent to Mr. Breckinridge, and Governor Wise of Virginia,
who, it was understood, warmly sympathized with Judge
Douglas in his struggle, as he had done through his whole
anti-Lecompton course in Congress; to which invitations these
gentlemen sent characteristic replies, which we think of suf.
ficient importance to here insert.
LETTrER OF MR. BRECKINRIDGE.
VERSAILLES, Ky., Oct. 4,1858.
DEAR SIR: I received this morning your letters of the 28th and 29th
ulnit., written as chairman of the Democratic State Committee of Illinois,
also one of Mr. V. Hickox, who informs me that he is a member of the
same committee. My absence from home will account for the delay of
this answer.
In these letters it is said that I am reported to have expressed a desire
that Mr. Douglas shall defeat Mr. Lincoln in their contest for a seat in the
Senate of the United States, and a willingness to visit Illinois and make
public speeches in aid of such result; and if these reports are true, I am
invited to deliver addresses at certain points in the State.
The rumor of my readiness to visit Illinois and address the people in the
present canvass is without foundation. I do not propose to leave Kentucky
for the purpose of mingling in the political discussions in other States.
The two or three speeches which I delivered recently in this State rested
on peculiar grounds, which I need not now discuss.
The rumor to which you refer is true.  I have often, in conversation,
expressed the wish that Mr. Douglas may succeed over his Republican competitor. But it is due to candor to say, that this preference is not founded
on his course at the late session of Congress, and would not exist if I supposed it would be construed as an indorsement of the attitude which he
then chose to assume toward his party, or of all the positions he has
taken in the present canvass. It is not necessary to enlarge on these thing&
134 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
t will only add, that my preference rests mainly on these considerations:
that the Kansas question is practically ended-that Mr. Douglas, in recent
speeches, has explicitly declared his adherence to the regular Democratic
party organization-that he seems to be the candidate of the Illinois Democracy, and the most formidable opponent in that State of the Republican
party, and that on more than one occasion during his public life he has
defended the union of the States and the-rights of the States with fidelity,
courage, and great ability.
I have not desired to say anything upon this or any other subject about
which a difference may be supposed to exist in our political family, but I
did not feel at liberty to decline an answer to the courteous letter of your
committee.
With cordial wishes for the harmony of the Illinois Democracy, and the
hope that your great and growing State, which has never yet given a aeo.
tional vote, may continue true to our constitutional Union,
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN C. BRECKINRIDGE.
iON. JOHN MOORE, Chairman of the Committee.
LETTER OF GOVERNOR WISE.
RICHMOND, VA., 188.
To HON. JOHN MOORE, Chairman ef the Democratic
State Committee of Illinois:
DEAR SIR: I cannot express to you the emotions of my bosom, excited
by your appeal to me for aid in the warm contest which your noble De.
mocracy is waging with abolitionism. Every impulse prompts me to rush
to your side. Your position is a grand one, and in some respects unexampled. In the face of doubt and distrust attempted to be thrown upon
your Democracy, and its gallant leader, by the pretext of pretenders that
you were giving aid and comfort to the arch enemy of our country, peace
and safety, and our party integrity, I see you standing alone-isolated by
a tyrannical proscription, which would, alike foolishly and wickedly, lop
off one of the most vigorous limbs of national Democracy, the limb of
glorious Illinois!  I see you, in spite of this imputation, firmly fronting
the foe, and battling to maintain conservative nationality-against em.
bittered and implacable sectionalism-constitutional rights, operating
proprid vigore, and every way against all unequal and unjust federal or
territorial legislation;
The right of the people to govern themselves against all force or fraud;
The right of the sovereign people to look at the "returns," and h,hitnd
135 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
the "returns," of all their representative bodies,  agents, trustees,  of
servants;
The responsibility of all governors, representatives, trustees, agents, and
servants, to their principals, the people, who are "the governed," and the
source of all political power;
Utter opposition to the detestable doctrine of the absolutism of conventions to prescribe and proclaim fundamental forms of government at
their will, without submission to the sovereign people-a doctrine fit only
for slaves, and claimed only by legitimists and despots of the old world;
Powers of any sort not expressly delegated to any man, or body of men.
are expressly "reserved to the people;"
No absolute or dictatorial authority in representative bodies. The repre.
tentative principle as claiming submission and obedience to the will of the
constituents;
The sovereignty of the organized people supreme above all mere representative bodies, conventions, or legislatures, to decide, vote upon, and
determine what shall be their supreme law;
Justice and equality between States and their citizens, and between
voters to elect their agents and representatives, and to ratify or reject any
proposed system of government;
Submission to the constitution and laws of the federal Union, and strict
observance of all the rights of the States and their citizens, but resistance
to the dictation or bribes of Congress, or any other power, to yield the
inalienable right of self-government;
Protection in the Territories, and everywhere, to all rights of persons
and of property, in accordance with the rights of the States, and with the
constitution and laws of the Union;
Equity and uniformity in the mode of admitting new States into the
Union, making the same rules and ratios to apply to all alike;
The rejection of all compromises, conditions or terms which would discriminate between forms of republican constitutions, admitting one, with
one number of population, and requiring three times that number for
another form equally republican;
The great law of settlement of the public domain of the United States,
free, equal, and just, never to be "temporized "'or "localized" by temporary or partial expedients, but to be adjusted by permanent uniforE
and universal rules of right and justice.
Maintaining these and the like principles, I deem it to be the aim of the
struggle of the devoted Democracy in this signal contest.  And so understanding them, I glory in their declaration and detfence. I would sacrIfics
much and go far to uphold your arms in this battle.  I would mo't gladly
136 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 8
visit your lyople, address them, and invoke them to stand fast by the
standard. of their faith and freedom, and never to let go the truths for
which they contend, for they are vital and cardinal, and essential, and can
never be yielded without yielding liberty itself.
But, sir, I am like a tied man, bound to my duties here; and, if my
office would allow me to leave it, I could not depart from the bedside of
illness in my family, which would probably recall me before I could reach
Illinois; and my own state of health admonishes me that I ought not to
undertake a campaign as arduous as that you propose. I know what the
labors of the stump are, and am not yet done suffehiug bodily from my
efforts for Democracy in 1855. For these reasons, I cannot obey your
call; but, permit me to add: Fight on! fight on! fight on!-never yield
but in death or victory! And, oh! that I was unbound and co,ld do
more than look on, throbbing with every pulse of your glorious strugglewith its every blow and breath-cheered with its hopes, and chafed by;tg
doubts-You have my prayers, and I am,
Yours truly,
HENRY A. WISE.
The Democracy of Illinois were not satisfied with the
spirit and tone of Mr. Breckinridge's letter, nor did they
acknowledge the justice of the Vice-President's insinuation,
that their position was no better than Black Republicanism,
contained in the following paragraph:
I have often, in conversation, expressed the wish that Mr. Douglas m-y
succeed over his competitor; but it is due to candor to say, that this preference is not founded on his course at the last session of Congress. and
would not exist if I supposed it would be construed as an indorsement of
the attitude which he then chose to assume toward his party, or of all the
positions he has taken in the present canvass.
The speeches of Mr. Breckinridge, in favor of tlhe Nebraska Bill, while that meas;re was pending in Congress,
and in 1856, when a candidate for the Vice-Presidency, in
each of which he advocated the doctrine of popular sove
reignty, in terms quite as explicit as those employed by Mr.
Douglas in his Freeport speech, were too fresh in the minds
of Illinoisans to permit this implied rebuke from a gen.
137 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
tleman whom they had so recently aided in electing to the
second office in the gift of the people to pass without hard
thoughts.  Nor did the Illinois Democrats exactly relish the
ambiguous and equivocal language in which the Vice-President
gave his reasons for preferring Mr. Douglas to Mr. Lincoln.
The tone and temper of the noble letter of Governor
Wise, replete with fervid interest in the struggle, is in striking contrast with that of Mr. Breckinridge, and the two letters
appearing about the same time, produced a profound impress
sion on the minds and feelings of the Illinois Democracy.
MR. DIXON'S LETTER.
Pending the campaign, the  Ion. Archibald Dixon, late
United States senator firom Kentucky, addressed a letter to
the Hon. Henry S. Foote, under date of September  30,
] 858, in which the public career of Mr. Douglas was referred
to, his position on the Lecompton constitution sustained,
and his course on the Nebraska Bill vindicated. Mr. Dixon
was formily a Whig, and will be remembered as having first
moved the repeal of the Missouiq restriction in the Senate,
an amendment which was modified and accepted  by  Mi'.
Douglas, and subsequently incorporated into the NebraskaKansas Bill.
The following extract will show in what estimation Mr.
Douglas was held by one of the retired statesmen of the country, no longer influenced by partisan feeling and personal
rivalry y:
Of Judge Douglas, personally, I have a few words to utter which I could
not withhold, without greatly wronging my own conscience.  When I el
tered thie United States Senate a few years since, I found him a decided
favorite with the political party then dominant both in the Senate and the
country. My mind had been greatly prejudiced against him, and I felt no
disposition whatever to sympathize, or to co6perate with him. It soon
138 
THE LIFE AND SlPEEOHES OF
became apparent to me, as to others, that he was, upon the whole, fai the
ablest Democratic member of the body. In the progress of ti'ne my
respect for him, both as a gentleman and a statesman, greatly increased.
[ found him sociable, affable, and in the highest degree entertaining and
instructive in social intercourse. His power, as a debater, seemed to me
unequalled in the Senate. He was industrious, energetic, bold, and skillful in the management of the concerns of his party. He was the acknow.
ledged leader of the Democratic party in the Senate, and, to confess the
truth, seemed to me to bear the honors which encircled him with suffi
cient meekness.   Such was  the  palmy state  of his reputation  ind
popularity on the day that he reported to the Senate his celebrated Kansas and Nebraska Bill.
On examining that bill, it struck me that it was deficient in one material
respect; it did not in terms repeal the restrictive provision in regard to
slavery embodied in the Missouri Compromise. This, to me, was a deficiency that I thought it imperiously necessary to supply. I accordingly
offered an amendment to that effect. My amendment seemed to take the
Senate by surprise, and no one appeared more startled than Judge Douglas himself. He immediately came to -my seat and courteously remonstrated against my amendment, suggesting that the bill which he had
introduced was almost in the words of the Territorial acts for the organization of Utah and New Mexico; that they being a part of the Compromise measures of 1850, he had hoped that I, a known and zealous friend
of the wise and patriotic adjustment which had then taken place, would
notbe inclined to do anything to call that adjustment in question or
weaken it before the country.
I replied that it was precisely because I had been, and was, a firm and
zealous friend of the Compromise of 1850, that I felt bound to persist in the
nmovement which I had originated; that I was well satisfied that the Missouri restriction, if not expressly repealed, would continue to operate in
the Territory to which it had been applied, thus negativing the great and
salutary principle of non-intervention, which constituted the most prominent and essential feature of the plan of settlement of 1850. We talked
for some time amicably, and separated.   Some days afterward Judge
Douglas came to my lodgings, while I was confined by physical indisposition, and urged me to get up and take a ride with him in his carriage. I.
accepted his invitation and rode out with him. During our short excursion we talked on the subject of my proposed amendment, and  Judge
Douglas, to my high gratification, proposed to me that I should allow him
to take charge of the amendment and ingraft it on his Territarial Bill. I
139 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
acceded to the proposition at once, whereupon a most interesting inter
change occurred between us.
On this occasion, Judge Douglas spoke to me, in substance, thus: "1
have become perfectly satisfied that it is my duty, as a fair-minded national
statesman, to co6perate with you as proposed in securing the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise restriction.  It is due to the South; it is due to the
Constitution, heretofore palpably infracted; it is due to that character for
consistency, which I have heretofore labored to maintain. The repeal, if
we can effect it, will produce much stir and commotion in the free States
of the Union for a season. I shall be assailed by demagogues and fanatics there, without stint or moderation. Every opprobrious epithet will
be applied to me. I shall be probably hung in effigy in many places. It
is more than probable that I may become permanently odious among those
whose friendship and esteem I have heretofore possessed   This proceed.
ing may end my political career. But, acting under the sense of the duty
which animates me, I am prepared to make the sacrifice. I will do it."
Hle spoke in the most earnest and touching manner, and I confess that
I was deeply affected. I said to him in reply: "Sir, I once recognized
you as a demagogue, a mere party manager, selfish and intriguing. I now
find you a warm-hearted and sterling patriot.  Go torward in the pathway
of duty as you propose, and though all the world desert you, I never
will."
The subsequent course of this extraordinary personage is now before
the country.  His great speeches on this subject, in the Senate and elsewhere, have since been made.   As a true national statesman-as  an
inflexible and untiring advocate and defender of the Constitution of his
country-as an enlightened, fair-minded, and high-souled patriot, he has
fearlessly battled for principle; he has with singular consistency pursued
the course which he promised to pursue when we talked together in Washington, neither turning to the right nor to the left. Though sometimes
reviled and ridiculed by those most benefited by his labors, he has P-ver
been heard to complain.  Persecuted by the leading men of the party he
had so long served and sustained, he has denmeaned himself, on all occasions, with moderation and dignity; though he has been ever earnest ill
the performance of duty, energetic in combating and overcoming the obstacles which have so strangely beset his pathway, and always ready to
meet and to overthrow such adversaries as have ventured to encounter
him.  He has been faithful to his pledge; he has been true to the South
and to the Union, and I intend to be faithful to my own pledge. I amre
sincerely grateful for his public services. I feel the highest admiration for 
THE  LIFE AND SP EECHES OF
al his noble qualities and high achievements, and I regard his repl tationa
as part of the moral treasures of the nation itself.
And now, in conclusion, permit me to say that the southern people
cannot enter into unholy alliance for the destruction of Judge Douglas,
if they are true to themselves, for he has made more sacrifices to sustain
southern institutions than any man now living. Scuthern men may, and
doubtless have,'met the enemies of the South;.n the councils of the nation,
and sustained, by their votes and their speeches, her inalienable rights
under the Constitution of oJr common cou:ntry; northern men may have
voted that those rights should not be wrested from us; but it has remained
for Judge Douglas alone, northern man as he is, to throw himself "into
the deadly imminent breach," and like the steadfast and everlasting rock
of the ocean, to withstand the fierce tide of fanaticism, and drive back
those angry billows which threatened to ingulf his country's happiness.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully and cordially, your friend and
fellow-citizen,                                            ARCH. DIXON.
Our limits will not allow us to refer further to the incidents
of the Illinois campaign. The canvass on both sides was
conducted with unparalleled spirit and energy until the day
of the election. The result is well known. The Republicans
were completely routed, and a Democratic legislature chosen.
Mr. Douglas' majority on joint ballot was eight, three in the
Senate and five in the House. Most of the federal officetolders voted the Republican ticket, and the reason assigned
for this act of treachery to the party was, that the entire
Catholic vote had remained faithful to the party wilh which
they had usually acted.
ill 
8 TEPEHEN A. DOUGLAS
CIIAPTER XIV.
Mr. Douglas leaves Chlicago for New Orleans-Received at St. louis and
Memphis-Brilliant Reception at New Orleans.
SooN after the close of the Illinois campaign, in November,
1858, Mr. Douglas, with his family, left Chicago for the pur.
pose of making a brief visit to New Orleans, to attend to
some pressing private matters which his public duties had
constrained him too long to neglect.  H[e gave no notice of
his intention to make the trip, desiring to perform the j,rur.
ney as speedily and quietly as possible.  Remaining in St.
Louis a day, for a boat to convey him down the river, the
news of his presence soon spread through the city, and  that
night he was honored with a serenade by a large concourse
of citizens, who assembled around the hotel and insisted on
a speech. Mr. Douglas acknowledged the compliment in a
few appropriate remarks, and expressed his gratification that
the people of Missouri, who were so deeply interested in the
institution of slavery, so justly appreciated the nature and
importance of the contest through which he had recently
passed in Illinois.
Proceeding down the river without giving any publio
notice of his destination, Mr. Douglas was surprised when,
nearly a hundred miles above Memphis, he was notified that
142 
THF LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
t.e Democracy of that city had learned by telegraph of his
intended visit to New Orleans, and had appointed a commit.
tee of one hundred persons and chartered a steamer to proceed up the river andi meet him, for the purpose of inducing
him to stop a day at Memphis and accept of the hospitalities
of that city. Not feeling at liberty to decline so flattering
an invitation, Mr. Douglas placed himself in the hands of the
committee, and on the following day addressed a large meet
ing of the citizens of Memphis on the political topics of the
day. In this speech Mr. Douglas confined himself mainly to
a discussion of the points presented in the Illinois campaign,
prefacing it with the declaration, that ne political creed was
sound which could not be proclaimed equally as well in one
State of the Union as in the other.  On a comparison of the
published report of this speech, as it appeared in the newspapers of the day, we find that he asserted the same views
on the Territorial question in Memphis as he had done in
Illinois.
The cordial and enthusiastic approbation with which his
audience received his speech, must have satisfied Mr. Douglas that Democracy was the same in Tennessee as in
Illinois.
At New Orleans, Mr. Douglas' reception was truly grand
and magnificent.  Approaching the Crescent at 9 o'clock at
night, he was received by the city authorities, the military
and the citizens, amidst the firing of cannon and in the glare
of a brilliant illumination.   He was escorted to the St.
Charles Hotel, where he was lodged as the guest of the city,
and addressed by the mayor on behalf of the municipal au
thorities, and by Hon. Pierre Soule on behalf of the citizens,
in eloquent speeches of congratulation on his brilliant victory
in Illinois over the enemies of the Constitution and the
Union, to each of which he made an appropriate response.
10
143 
STEPHEN, A. DOUGLAS.
CHAPTER XV.
)r. Douglas again in Washington-Experiences a Change of Atmosphere:
Scene shifts-Removed from Post of Chairman of Territorial Commit tee-His Services as Chairman-Pretext of Removal-Freeport Speech Letter to California in reply to Dr. Gwin.
WHEN Mr. Douglas reached Washington, where Executive
power and patronage stifles popular sentiment, he found him.
self suddenly plunged into a very different atmosphere from
that which he had been breathing in the past few weeks.
Failing in their efforts to defeat his reelection to the Senate
by a disreputable coalition with the abolitionists of Illinois,
his enemies contrived a new scheme to humble and degrade
the unsubdued rebel.  For thirteen years previous, he had
been chairman of the Committee on Territories, two years in
the House and eleven in the Senate. In that capacity, he
had reported and successfully carried through Congress bills
for the admission of the following States: Texas, Iowa, Wisconsin, California, Oregon, and Minnesota.
During the same period, he had reported and successfully
carried through Congress bills to organize the following Territories: Oregon, Minnesota, New Mexico, Utah, Washing.
ton, Kansas, and Nebraska. In that time, he had met and
mastered every intricate question which had arisen connected
with the organization of the Territories and the admission of
new States. Confessedly, he was more familiar with all subjects pertaining to Territorial legislation, than any other liv.ing man. His peculiar qualifications and acquaintance with
144 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES  O 
the subject, induced the Senate, on the day of his first
entrance into that body, to put him at the head of the Territorial Committee. He had been unanimously nominated in
the Democratic caucus, and reelected chairman of that committee each succeeding year. With a full knowledge on the
part of every senator of his views and opinions on Territorial
policy, what excuse can be given for,tie removal of a man
fiom a position which he had so long filled with such distinguished ability, and for which he was so eminently qualified?
With or without excuse, however, the deed was consummated in a secret caucus, and in Mr. Douglas' absence. The
public indignation at his removal was almost universal.
Indeed, so heavily did it fall on those engaged in it, but
three or four senators have ever had the boldness to confess
themselves parties to the act, ant even these have assigned
a reason as a pretext for the deed, which is an insult to the
intelligence of the American people, and but a poor compli.
ment to their own understanding; since they affected to call
in question MIr. Douglas' political orthodoxy for the expression of an opinion in his Illinois campaign, which he had
advanced and elaborated in his speeches on the Compromise
measures of 1850, and upon the passage of the Kansas.
Nebraska Bill, and indeed upon every discussion of the
slavery question in which he had participated for the ten
years previous to his removal.
Notwithstanding Mr. Douglas, in all his joint debates with
Mr. Lincoln, in Illinois, had taken direct issue with him on all his
abolition propositions —assuming bold ground against negro
citizenship-reasserting his old position, that uniformity in
the institutions of the various States was neither possible nor
desirable-treating negro-slavery as purely a question of
climate, production, and political economy, to be regulated
by their inexorable lawssustaininig the Fugitive Slave Law,
and avowing his willingness, if not strong enough, to vote to
145 
S1 tEPREN A. DOUGLAS.
make it stronger-maintaining the binding force of all
supreme judicial decisions —vindicating the equality ot all
the States, and proclaiming the right of all their citizens to
emigrate into the common Territories on the basis of an
entire equality under the local law, with their property of all
descriptions, whether horses, clocks, negroes or what notdenouncing the doctrines of the "irrepressible conflict,"
when advanced by Lincoln four months prior to Seward's
Rochester speech-sustaining the regular organization of the
Democratic party, and maintaining the Democratic creed as
enunciated in the Cincinnati platform;-notwithstanding all
these facts, they seized on an answer of Mr. Douglas to a
question propounded by Mr. Lincoln, at Freeport, took it
from its context and offered it to the country as the reason
for his removal from the chairmanship of the Committee on
Territories.
It went for nothing that Col. Jefferson Davis had uttered,
a few weeks before, at Portland, similar views touching the
power of the people of the Territories, which Mr. Douglas
quoted and indorsed in a joint debate with Mr. Lincoln at
Alton, as containing his own views-nothing that Stephens,
Orr, Cobb, and a host of Democratic lights, great and small,
were committed to the same proposition-nothing that Mr.
Douglas was simply repeating as the Washington "Union"  at
that time in an elaborate article charged and proved (alleging that he was consistently unsound), what he had uttered
frequently in the debates on the Compromise measures of
1850-nothing that Col. Richardson, when the Democratic
candidate for Speaker, in 1855, had expressed similar opinions,
and received, afterward, every Democratic - ote in thlo
House-it booted nothing that Mr. Douglas was on record
one hundred times advocating the same doctrine while these
very men (his present accusers) were his advocates for the
Presidency. These things all stood for nothing
146 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
MiR. DOUGLAS' CALIFORNIA LETTER.
It is a remarkable fact, that while Mr. Douglas was removed
from the Committee on Territories in December, 1858, no
senator ever publicly assigned Mr. Douglas' Freeport speech
as a cause for it, until in July, 1859, Dr. Gwin gave this
reason in a speech in California. Mr. Douglas promptly
replied to Dr. Gwin's speech, in a letter addressed to the
editor of the San Francisco "National," from which we
extract so much as relates to this subject:
The country is now informed for the first time that I was removed fromn
the post of chairman of the Committee on Territories because of the sentiments contained in my "Freeport speech."  To use the language of Mr.
Gwin, "The doctrines he had avowed in his Freeport speech had been
condemned in the Senate by his removal from the chairmanship of the
Tnrritorial Committee of that body." The country will bear in mind this
testimony, that I was not removed because of any personal unkindness or
hostility; nor in consequence of my course on the Lecomnpton question,
or in respect to the administration; but that it was intended as a condemnation of the doctrines avowed in my "Freeport speech." The only posit,on taken in my "Freeport speech," which I have ever seen criticised or
controverted, may be stated in a single sentence, and was in reply to an
interrogatory propounded by my competitor for the Senate: "That " the
Territorial legislature could lawfully exclude slavery, either by non-action
or unfriendly legislation." This opinion was not expressed by me at Freeport for the first time. I have expressed the same opinion often in the
Senate, freely and frequently, in the presence of those senators who, as
Mr. Gwin testifies, removed me "from the chairmanship of the Committee
on Territories," ten years after they knew that I held the opinion, and
would never surrender it.
I could fill many columns of the "National" with extracts of speeches
made by me during the discussion of the Compromise measures in 1850,
and in defence of the principles embodied in those measures in 1851 and
1852, in the discussion of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill in 1854, and of the
Kansas difficulties and the Topeka revolutionary movements in 1856, in alj
of which I expressed the same opinion and defended the same positioP
which was assumed in the "Freeport speeech." I will not. however, bur
let 
STEPHEN A. DOVGLAS.
den your columns or weary your readers with extracts of all these speeches
but will refer you to each volume of the "Congressional Globe" for the
last ten years, where you will find them fully reported. - If you cannot
conveniently procure the the "Congressional Globe," I refer you to an
editorial article in the Washington "Union" of October 5, 1858, which, it
was reported, received the sanction of the President of the United States
previously to its publication, a few weeks after my "Freeport speech" had
been delivered. The "Union" made copious extracts of my speeches in
1850 and 1854, to prove that at each of those periods I held the same
opinions which I expressed at Freeport in 1858, and, consequently, declared that I never was a good Democrat, much less sound on the slavery
question, when I advocated the Compromise measures of 1850, and the
Kansas-Nebraska Bill in 1854.
In the article referred to, the Washington Union said:
"We propose to show that Judge Douglas' action in 1850 and 1854 was taken with
especial reference to the announcement of doctrine and programme which was made at
Freeport. The declaration at Freeport was, that in his opinion the people can, by
lawful means, exclude slavery from a Territory before it comes in as a State;' and he
declared that his competitor had'heard him argue the Nebraska Bill on that principle
all over Illinois in 1854, 1855, and 1856, and had no excuse to pretend to have any doubt
on that subject.'"
T) a Union summed up the evidence furnished by my speeches in the
Senl te in i850 and 1854. that the "Freport speech" was consistent with
my former course, with this emphatic declaration.
"Thus we have shown that precisely the position assumed by Judge Douglas at Free
port had been maintained by him in 1850, in the debates and votes on the Utah and Ne'
AMexican Bills, and in 18:4 on the Kansas-Nebraska Bill; and have shown that it wal
owing to his opposition that clauses depriving Territorial legislatures of-the power of
excluding slavery from their jurisdictions were not expressly inserted in those measuree.'9
The evidence thus presented by the Washington "Union "-the evidence
of an open enemy-is so full and conclusive, that I have uniformly advocated for ten years past the same principles which I avowed at Freeport,
,that I cannot refrain from asking you to spread the entire article before
your readers, as an appendix, if you choose. to this letter.
The question whether the people of the Territories should be permitted
to decide the slavery question for themselves, the same as all other rightful subjects of legislation, was thoroughly discussed and definitively settled
in the adoption of the Compromise measures of 1850. The Territorial bills,
u  originally reported on by the Committee on Territories, extended the
148 
THE LI] E AND SPEECHES OF
authority tof the Territorial legislature to all rightful subjects of legislation
consistent with the Constitution, withoukt excepting African slavery. Modified by the Committee of Thirteen, they conferred power on the Territorial
legislature over all rightful subjects of legislation, except African slavery.
This distinct question, involving the power of the Territorial legislature
over the subject of African slavery, was debated ill the Senate from the 8th
of May until the 31st of July, 1850, when the limitation was stricken out
by a vote of yeas 33, nays 19; and the Territorial legislature authorized
to legislate on all rightful subjects, without excepting 4Aftrican slavery.   In
this form and upon this principle, the Compromise measures of 1850 were
enacted.
When I returned to my home in Chicago, at the end of the session of
Congress, after the adoption of the measures of adjustment, the excitement was intense.   The City Council had passed a resolution nullifying
the Fugitive Slave Act, and releasing the police from all obligations to
obey the law or assist in its execution. Amidst this furious excitement,
and surrounded by revolutionary movements, I addressed the assembled
populace. My speech, in which I defended each and all of the Compromise measures of 1850, was published at the time, and spread broadcast
throughout the country. I herewith send you a copy of that speech, in
which you will find that I said
These measures are predicated on the great fundamental principle that every people
ought to possess the right of forming and regulating their own internal concerps and
domestic institutions in their own way. It was supposed that those of our fellow-citizens
who emigrated to the shores of the Pacific and to our other territories, were as capable
of self-government as their neighbors and kindred whom they left behind them; and
there was no reason for believing that they have lost any of their intelligence or patriotism by the wayside, while crossing the Isthmus or the Plains.  It was also believed that
after their arrival in the country, when they had become familiar with its topography,
climate, productions, and resources, and had connected their destiny with it, they were
fully as competent to judge for themselves what kind of laws and institutions were best
adapted to their condition and interests, as we were, who never saw the country, and
knew very little about it. To question their competency to do this was to deny their
capacity for self-government. If they have the requisite intelligence and honestv to be
Intrusted with the enactment of laws for the government of white men, I know af no
reason why they should not be deemed competent to legislate for the negro. If they
are sufficiently enlightened to make laws for the protection of life, liberty, and, property
-of morals and education-to determine the relation of husband and wife, of parent
and child-I am not aware that it requires any higher degree of civilization to regulate
the affairs of master and servant. These things are all confided by the Constitution to
each State to decide for itself, and I know of no reason why the same principle shoul4
not be extended to the Territories."
$
This epeech was laid on the desk of every member of the Senate, it tt
i49 
STEPHEN A.'DOUGLAS.
opening of the second session of the 31st Congress, in December, 185.
when, with a full knowledge of my opinions on the Territorial question, I
was unanimously nominated in the Democratic caucus, and reelected by
the Senate chairman of the Committee on Territories. From that titne
wo this I have spoken the same sentiments, and vindicated the same posi tions in debate in the Senate, and have been reelected chairman of the
Committee on Territories at each session of Congress, until last December,
by the unanimous voice of the Democratic party in caucus and in the Sen ate, with my opiniions on this Territorial question well known to, and well
understood by every senator.  Yet Mr. Gwin testifies that Iwas condemned
and deposed by the Senate for the utterance of opinions in 1858, which
were put on record year after year so plainly and so unequivocally as to
eave neither the Senate nor the country in doubt. Thus does Mr. Gwin,
n his eagerness to be my public accuser, speak his own condemnation, for
ie voted for me session after session, with my opinions, the same that I
spoke at Freeport, staring him in the face.
On the 4th of January, 1854, I reported the Nebraska Bill, and, as
chairman of the Committee on Territories, accompanied it with a special
report, in which  I stated distinctly "that all questions pertaining to
slavery in the Territories, and in the new States to be formed therefrom,
are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein, by their appropriate representatives to be chosen by them for that purpose." And that
the bill proposed "to carry these propositions and principles into practical
operation in the precise language of the Compromise measures of 1850."
The Kansas-Nebraska Act, as it stands on the statute book, does define the
power of the Territorial legislature "in the precise lajguage of the Compromise measures of 1850."  It gives the  legislature power over all
rightful subjects of legislation not inconsistent with the Constitution,
without excepting African slavery. During the discussion of the measureit was suggested that it was necessary to repeal the 8th section of the act
of the 6th of March, 1850, called the Missouri Compromise, in order to
permit the people to control the slavery question while they remained in a
Territorial condition, and before they became a State of the Union.  That
was the object and only purpose for which the Missouri Compromise was
repealed.
On the night of the Sd of March, 1854, in my closing speech on the
Kansas-Nebraska Bill, a few hours before it passed the Senate, I said: "It
Is only for the purpdse of carrying out this great fundamental principle of
self-government that the bill renders the 8th section of the Missouii Act
ioperative and void." The article of the Washington "Union " of Octobet
150 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
E, 1858, to which I have referred, quotes this and other passages of my
speech on that occasion, to prove that the author of the Nebraska Bill
framed it with express reference to conferring on the Territorial legislature power to control the slavery question. And further, that I boldly
avowed the purpose at the time in the presence of all the friends of the
bill, and urged its passage upon that ground. I have never understood
that Mr. Gwin, or any other senator who heard that speech and voted for
the bill the same night, expressed any dissent or disapprobation of the
doctrines it announced.  That was the time for dissent and disapprobation;
that was the time to condemn, if there were cause to'condemn, and not
four or five years later.  The record furnishes no such evidence of dissent
or disapprobation; nor does the history of those times show that the
Democratic party, in the North or in the South, or in any portion of the
country, repudiated the fundamental principle upon which the KansasNebraska Act is founded, and proscribed its advocates and defenders.
If Mr. Gwin did not understand the Kansas-Nebraska Bill when it was
under consideration, according to its plain meaning as explained and
defended by its authors and supporters, it is not the fault of those who
did understand it precisely as I interpreted it at Freeport, and as the
country understood it in the Presidential canvass of 1856. Mr. Buchanan,
and leading members of his cabinet, at all events, understood the Kansas.
Nebraska Act ill the same sense in which it was understood and defended
at the time of its passage. Mr. Buchanan, in his letter accepting the
Cincinnati nomination, affirmed that "this legislation is founded upon
principles as ancient as free government itself, and, in accordance with
them, has simply declared that the people of a Territory, like those of a
State, shall decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist
within their limits."  General Cass, now secretary of state, has always
maintained, from the day he penned the "Nicholson Letter" to this, that
the people of the Territories have a right to decide the slavery question
for themselves whenever they please. In 1856, on the 2d day of July,
referring to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, he said: "I believe the original
act gave the Territorial legislature of Kansas full power to exclude or
allow slavery."  Mr. Toucey, the secretary of the navy, interpreted that
act in the same way, and, on the same occasion in the Senate, said:
"The original act recognizes in the Territorial legislature all the power which they can
have, subject to the Constitution, and subject to the organic law of the Territory."
Mr. Cobb, the secretary of the treasury, in a speech at West Chester,
Pennsylvania, on the'19th of September, 1856, advocating Mr. Buchanan'#
election to the Presidency, said:
151 
STEP H EN A. DOUGLAS,
5 The government of the United States should not force the institution o0  s'avery uloO
the people either of the Territories or of the States, against the will of the people, though
my voice could bring about that result. I stand upon the principle-the people of my
State decide it for themselves, you for yourselves, the people of Kansas for thlemselves.
That is the Constitution, and I stand by the Ccnstitution."  And again, in the same speech,
he said: "Whether they" (the people of a Territory) " decide it by prohibiting it, according to the one doctrine, or by refusing to pass laws to protect it, as contended for
by the other party, is immaterial. The majority of the peolie, by the action of the
Territorial legislature, will decide the question; and all must abide the decision when
made."
Here we find the doctrines of the Freeport speech, including "non-ac tion" and "unfriendly legislation" as a lawful and proper mode for the exclusion of slavery from a Territory clearly defined by Mr. Cobb, and the
election of Mr. Buichanan advocated on those identical doctrines. Mr.
Cobb made similar speeches during the Presidential canvass in other
sections of Pennsylvania, in Maine, Indiana, and most of the northern
States, and was appointed secretary of the treasury by Mr. Buchanan  as
a mark of gratitude for the efficient services which had been thus rendered.
Will any senator who voted to remove me from the chairmanship of the
Territorial Committee for expressing opinions for which Mr. Cobb, Mr.
Toucey, and General Cass were rewarded, pretend that he did not know
that they or either of them had ever uttered such opinions wher  their
nominations were before the Senate? I am sure that no Senator will
make so humiliating a confession. Why, then, were those distinguished
gentlemen appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate as
cabinet ministers if they/were not good Democrats-sound on the slavery
question, and faithful exponents of the principles and creed of the party I
Is it not a significant fact that the President and the most distinguished
and honored of his cabinet should have been solemnly and irrevocable
pledged to this monstrous heresy of 6 popular sovereignty," for asserting
which the Senate, by Mr. Gwin's frank avowal, condemned me to the
extent of their power?
It must be borne in mind, however, that the President a-d members of
the cabinet are not the only persons high in authority who are committed
to the principle of self-government in the Territories.  Tihe Hon. John C.
Breckinridge, the Vice-President of the United States, was a member of
the House of Representatives when the Kansas-Nebraska Bill passed, and
in a speech delivered March 23, 1854, said:
" Among the many misrepresentations sent to the country by some of the enemies of
this bill, perhaps none is more flagrant than the charge that it proposes to legislate
slaver, into Kansas and Nebraska.  Sir, if the bill contained such a future 1i vol no4
152
I 
'IUE  LIFE AND SPEECHE ES  OF
reetive my vote.  The right to establish involves the correlative right to prohibit, and
denying both I would vote for neither.....
" ThIe effect of the repeal, (of the Missouri Comnpromise,) therefore, is neither to estab
lish nor to exclude, but to leave the future condition of the Territories dependent wholly
upon the action of the inlhabitants, subject only to such limitations as the federal Constitution may impose.........   It will be observed that the right of the
people to regulate in their own way all their domestic institutions is left wilolly untouched,
except that whatever is done must be done in accordance with the Constitution-the
supreme law for us all."
Again, at Lexington, Kentucky, on the 9th of June, 1856, in response
to the congratulatiols of his neighbors on his nomination for the VicePresidency, Mr. Breckinridge said:
The whole power of the Democratic organization is pledged to the following proposi.
tions: That Congress shall not interpose upoo this subject (slavery) in the States,' in the
Territories, or in the District of Colu!,bia; that the people of each Territory shall deter.
mnine the question for themselves, and be admitted into the Union upon a footing of
perfect equality with the original States, without discrimination on account of the allow.
ance or prohibition of slavery."
Touching the power of the Territorial legislature over the subject of
slavery, the Hon. James L. Orr, late speaker of the House of Representatives, on the 11th of December, 1856, said:
"Now, the legislative authority of a Territory is invested with a discretion to vote for
or against the laws. We think they ought to pass laws in every Territory, when the Territory is open to settlement and slaveholders go there, to protect slave property. But if
they decline to pass such law, what is the remedy? None, sir, if the majority of the
people are opposed to the institution; and if they do not desire it ingratted upon their
Territory, all they have to do is simply to decline to pass laws in the Territorial legislature for its protection, and then it is as well exclude' as if the power was invested in
the Territorial legislature to prohibit it."
Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, in a speech in the House of Representatives
on the 17th of February, 1854, said:
" The whole question of slavery was to be left to the people of the Territories, whether
north or south of 361 80S, or any other line.
"It was based upon the truly republican and national policy of taking this disturbing
element out of Congress and leaving the whole question of slavery in the Territories to
the people there to settle it for themselves. And it is in vindication of that new prinu
ciple-then established for the first time in the history of our government-in the year
1850, the middle of the nineteenth century, that we, the friends of the Nebraska Bill,
whether from the North or South, now call upon this house and the country to carry out
in good faith, and give effect to the spirit and intent of those important measures of Ter
ritorial legislation."
153 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
Again, on the 17th of January, 1856, he said:
k I am willing that the Territorial leg'slature may act upon the s'ubjct whom and how
they may think proper."
Mr. Benjamin,  of Louisiana, in a speech  in the Senate on the 25thl of
May, 1854, on the Nebraska Bill, said:
"We find, then, that this principle of the independence and  self-government of the
people in the distant Territories of the confederacy harmonizes all these conflicting
opinions, and enables us to banish from the halls of Congress another fertile source of
content and excitement." 
On February 15, 1854, Mr. Badger, of North Carolina, said of the
Kausas-Nebraska Bill:
" It submits the whole authority to the Territory to determine for itself. That in my
judgment, is the place where it ought to be put. If the people of the Territories choose
to exclude slavery, so far from considering it as a wrong done to me or to my constituents, I shall not complain of it. It is their business."
Again, on March 2, 1854, one day before the passage of the bill through
the Sellate, Mr. Badger said:
"But with regard to that question we have agreed-some of us because we thought it
the only right mode, and some because we think it a right mode, and under existing circumstances the preferable mode-to confer this power upon the people of the Territories."
On the same day Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, said:
" Now, I believe that under the provisions of this bill, and of the Utah and New Mexico
bills, there will be a perfect carte blanche given to the Territorial legislature to legislate
as they may think proper......   I am willing to trust them.  I have been
willing to trust them in Utah and New Mexico, where the Mexican law prevailedt, and I
am willing to trust them in Nebraska and Kansas, where the French law, according to
the idea of the gentleman, may possibly be revived."
In the House of Representatives, June 25, 1856, Mr. Samuel A. Smith,
Tennessee, said:
"For twenty years this question had agitated Congress and the country without a
single beneficial result. They resolved that it should be transferred from these halls,
that all unconstitutional restrictions should be removed, and that the people should determine for themselves the character of their local and domestic institutions under which
they were to live, with precisely the same rights, but no greater than those which were
enjoyed by the old thirteen States."
And further;
" la 1, the same question was presented, when the necessity arose for the organb
154 
THE LI FE AND SPEE CHES OF 
fon of the Territories of Kansas ani Nebraska, and the identical principle wae alylitd
for its solution"
In the Senate, on the 25th of February, 1854, Mr. Dodge, of Iowa (now
Democratic candidate for governor of that State), said:
"And, sir, honesty and consistency with our course in 1850 demand that those 9f us
who supported the Compromise measures should zealously suppo:t this bill, because it
is a return to the sound principle of leaving to the people of the Territories the right of
determining for themselves their domestic institutions."
And in the House of Representatives, December 28, 1'855, Mr. George
/V. Jones, of Tennessee, said:
"Then, sir, you may call it by what name you please-non-Intervention, squatter
sovereignty, or popular sovereignty. It is, sir, the power of the people to govern themselves, and they, and they alone, should exercise it, in my opinion, as well while in a
Territorial condition as in the position of a State."
And again, in the same speech, he said:
"I believe that the great principle-the right of the people in the Territories, as well
as in the States; to form and regulate their own domestic institutions in their own wayis clearly and unequivocally embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and if it is not, II
should have been. Believing that it was the living, vital principle of the act, I voted for
it. These are my views, honestly entertained, and will be defended."
I could fill you columns with extracts of speeches of senators and representatives from the North and the South who voted for the Kansas-Nebraska
Bill and supported Mr. Buchanan for the Presidency on that distinct issue
thus showing conclusively that it was the general understanding at the time
that the people of the Territories, while they remained in a Territorial condition, were'left perfectly free, under the Kansas-Nebraska  Act, to form and
regulate all their domestic institutions, slavery not excepted, in their own
way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. This is the
doctrine of which Mr. Gwin spoke whefi he said:
"To contend for the power-and a sovereign power it is-of a Territorial legislatm e to
exclude by non-action or hostile legislation is pregnant with the mischiefs of n,ev erending agitation, of civil discord, and bloody wars.
*      *       *      *       *       *      *       *       *      *       *
"It is an absurd, monstrous, and dangerous theory, which demands denunciation from
every patriot in the land; and a profound sense of my duty to you would not permit me
to do less than to offer this brief statement of my views upon a question so vital to the
welfare of our rommon country."
Wh. did not the same "profound sense of duty" to the people of California require Mr. Gwin to denounce this "absurd, monstrous, and  dan
155 
!STEPHIEN A. DOUtGLAS.
gei-us theory when pronounced and enforced by General Cass, in Fapport
of the Compromise measures of 1850, and thence repeated by that eminent
statesman at each session of Congress until 1857, when Mr. Gwin voted for
his confirmation as secretary of state? Why did not Mr. Gwin obey the
same sense of duty by denouncing  James Buchanan as the Democratic
candidate for thp Presidency, when he declared, in 1856, that " the
people of a Territory, like those of a State, shall decide for themselves
whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits?" Why did he
nriot perform this imperative duty by voting against Mr. Cobb, who made
northern votes for Mi'. Buchanan by advocating tlis same "absurd,
monstrous  a.,d dangerous theory of' non-action' and'unfriendly legislation "' wncs, ne was appointed secretary of the treasury? And, in short,
why did no not prove his fidelity to a high sense of duty by protesting
against my Selection as chairman of the Senate's Committee on Territories
in the Democratic caucus by a unanimous vote, at every session that he
has been a senator, from 1850 to 1858, with a full knowledge of my
opinionst  The inference is, that Mr. Gwin, from  his remarks on the
" Dred Scott decision," is prepared to offer it as an excuse for the disregard
for so many years of that profound sense of duty which he owed to the
people of California. It may be that before the decision his mind was not
clear as to the sense of duty which now moves him. Of that decision he
said:
"In March, 1857, the Supreme Court decided this question, in all its various relations,
in the case of Dred Scott.  That decision declares that neither Congress nor a Territorial
legislature possesses the power either to establish or to exclude slavery from the Territory,
and that it was a power which exclusively belonged to the States; that the people of a
Territory can exercise this power for the first time when they form a constitution; that
the right of the people of any State to carry their slaves into a common Territory of the
United States, and hold them there during its existence as such, was guaranteed by the
Constitution of the United States; that it was a right which could neither be subverted
nor evaded, either by non-action, by direct or indirect Congressional legislation, or by
any law passed by a Territorial legislature."
Surely Mr. Gwin had never read the opinion of the Court in the case of
"Dred Scott," except as it had been perverted for partisan purposes by
newspapers, when he undertook to expound it to the good people of Cali
fornia.
It eo happens that the court did not decide any one of the propositions
so boldly and emphatically stated in the "Grass Valley" speech!
The court did not declare that "neither Congress nor a Territorial le
Oiature possessed the power either to establish or excl'(le slavery from a
156 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
Territory, and that it was a power which exclusively beionged to the
States."
The court did not declare "that the people of a Territory can exercise
this power for the first time when they come to form a constitution.
The court did not declare "that the right of the people in arty State to
carry their slaves into a common Territory of the United States, and hold
them there during its existence as such, was guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."
The court did not declare "that it was a right which could neither be
subverted nor evaded, either by non-action, by direct or indirect Congressional legislation, or by any law passed by a Territorial legislature."
Neither the decision nor the opinion of thie court affirms any one of those
propositions, either in express terms or by fair legal intendment.
This version of the "Dred Scott Decision " had its origin in the unfortunate Lecompton controversy, and is one of the many political heresies to
which it gave birth.
PROTECTION TO AMERICAN CITIZENS ABROAD.
On the 18th of February, 1859, President Buchanan had sent
to Congress a special message, in which he urged the necessity of passing" a law conferring upon the President of the
United States the authority to employ a sufficient military or
naval force, whenever it might be necessary to do so, for the
protection of American citizens when out of the immediate
jurisdiction of the United States. Mr. Douglas spoke ill
favor of such a law, and said: "I think sir, that the President of the United States ought to have the power to redress sudden injuries upon our citizens, or outrages upon our
flag, without waiting for the action of Congress. The Executive of every other powerful nation on earth has that
authority. Our merchants are now being driven out of the
trade in the Mexican and South American ports, for the want
of authority in the Executive to demand and enforce instant
redress the moment the outrage is perpetrated. I go fur.
tiler, sir; I would intrust the Executive with the authority.
when an outrage is perpetrated upon our ships or commerce,
157 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
to punish it instantly.  I desire the President of the United
States to have as much authority to protect American citi.
zens, American property, and the American flag, abroad, as
the Executive of every other civilized nation on earth possesses."
SLAVE PROPERTY IN THE TERRITORIES.
On the 23d of February, in a debate on the Legislative
Appropriation Bill, Mr. Brown, of Mississippi, made a speech
in the Senate, insisting on a code of laws protecting slavery
in the Territories. Admitting that, if the people of the Terri.
tories did not want negroes, they could lawfully legislate
so as to accomplish their purpose, he assumed that it was the
right and duty of Congress to enact laws to sustain it against
the popular will. Taking Mr. Douglas' position on the
question (as he said) for granted, Mr. Brown declared that
he wished to hear from other Democratic senators from the
free States, and to know whether they would vote to protect
the rights of slaveholders in the Territories. No one rising
for several minutes after, Mr. Brown concluded his remarks,
and the Senate being about to proceed to the consideration
of other subjects, Mr. Douglas arose and observed that if no
other northern Democratic senator desired to be heard on the
points presented by the senator from Mississippi, he craved
the attention of the Senate for a while. He thanked Mr.
Brown for taking his position for granted on the question presented to the other northern Democrats. He had yet to know
that there was one Democrat in the free States who would
vote to protect slavery in the Territories by Congressional
enactment againstthe popular decision. In this speech he shows
that all property in the Territories, including slaves, is, and
must be, subject to the local law of the Territorial legislature:
that the Territorial legislature has the same power over
slaves in the Territory, as it has over all other property; and
158 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 
no more: he explains his Freeport speech; reminds the Sen
ate that his past record shows that he would never vote for
a Congressional slave code for the Territories; shows the
absurdity of such a code; and demonstrates that if the people of a Territory want slavery there, they will enact laws for
ts protection: he shows that it-was the intent of the Nebraska Bill to confer on the Territorial legislature all the
power that Congress possessed on the subject, of slavery, to
let them wield it as the people of the Territory chose: he
elucidates the truly equitable and just provisions of that bill,
and shomws that it expressly forbids the enactment of a Con
gressioiial slave code for the Territories.
In the course of-his remarks he said:
The senator from Mississippi and myself agree that under the de cision of the Supreme Court, slaves are property, standing on an
equal footing with all other property; and that consequently, the
owner of slaves has the same right to carry his slave with him to a
Territory, as the owner of any other species of property has to carry
h/  property there.  The right of transit to and from the Territories
is the same for one species of property as it is for all others. Thus
far the senator from Mississippi and myself agree-that slave property in the Territories stands on an equal footing with every other
species of property. Now, the question arises, to what extent is property, slaves included, subject to the local law of the Territory?
Whatever power the Territorial legislature has over other species
of property, extends, in my judgment, to the same extent, and in like
manner, to slave property.   The  Territorial legislature has the
same power to legislate in respect to slaves, that it has in regard to
any other property, to the samli  extent, and no further.  If the senator wishes to know what power it has over slaves in the Territories,
I answer, let him tell me what power it has to legislate over every
other species of property, either by encouragement or by taxation or
in any other mode and he has my answer in regard to slave property.
But the senator says that there is something peculiar in slave property, requiring further protection than other species of property.
If so, it is the misfortune of those who own that species of property.
He tells us that, if the Territorial legislature fails to pass a slave
code for the Territories, fails to pass police regulations to protect
slave property, the absence of such legislation practically excludes
slave property as effectually as a constitutional prohibition would
exclude it.  I agree to that proposition.  He says, furthermore, that
it is competent for the Territorial legislature, by the exercise of the
11
169 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. B
taxing power, and other functions within the limits of the Constitn
tion, to adopt unfriendly legislation which practically drives slavery
out of the Territory. I agree to that proposition. That is just w hat
I said, and all I said, and just what I meant by my Freeport speech
in Illinois, upon which there has been so much comment throughout
the country.
*      *       *        *       *       *       *       *
The senator from Mississippi says they ought to pass such a code
but he admits that it is immaterial to inquire whether they ought or
ought not to do it; for if they do not want it, they will not enact
it; and if they do not do it, there is no mode by which you can conmpelthem- to do it.  Hle admits there is no compulsory means by
which you can coerce the Territorial legislature to pass such a law;
and for that reason hie insists that, in case of non-action by the Territorial legislature, it is the right and duty of southern senators and
representatives to demand affirmative action by Congress in the enactment of a slave code for the Territories.  He says that it is cot
necessary to put the question to me, whether I would vote for a Congressional slave code. He desire to know of all other northern Democrats what they will do; he does not wish an answer from me.
I am much obliged to him for taking it for granted, from my past
record, that I never would vote for a slave code in the Territories by
Congress; and I have yet to learn that there is a man in a free State
of this Union, of any party, who would.
The senator from Mississippi defined it very well in his speech.
His position was, that while the Constitution gave him the righlit of
protection in a Territory for his slave property, it did not, of itself, furnish adequate protection. l Ie drew a distinction between
the right and the fact, and said that the protection could only be
furnished by legislation; that legislation could only come from one
of two sources-the Territorial legislature or the Congress of the
United  States.   He would look to the Territorial legislature in
the first instance. If he got adequate legislation there, lie was content; but if the Territorial legislature failed to act, and give himi
that adequate legislation, in the form of what is commonly called a
slave code, such non-action was equivalent to a denial of his rights;
and, losing his rights, it was no consolation to him that hlie had been
deprived of them by the non-action of a Territorial legislature
and hence he would demand of Congress the passage of laws to
protect his slaves, and to punish men for running them-off; to furnish such remedies for the violation of his rights as he thought he
was entitled to from the Territorial legislature.   He said he would
demand this from Congress. He further said that he would base
his demand on Congress to pass this slave code on the ground that
the Territorial legislature was the creature of Congress; and, if it
did not do its duty, Congress should pass such laws as were necessary to protect slave property in the Territories.
All I1 have to say, on the point presented by the senator from Mis
160 
THE LIF'E AND  SPEECHES OF
louri, is this: while our Constitution does not provide remedied for
stealing negroes, it does not provide remedies for stealing dry-gods4
or horses, or any other species of property. You cannot protect any
property in the Territories, without laws furnishing remedies for its
violation, and penalties for its abuse. Nobody pretends that you are
going to pass laws of Congress mnaking a criminal code for the Territories, with reference to other species of property. The Congress of
the United States never yet passed an act creating a criminal code for
any organized Territory.   It simply organizes the Territory, and
leaves its legislature to make its own criminal code. Congress never
passed a law to protect any species of property in the-orgranized Territories; it leaves its protection to the Territorial Legislatures. The
question is, whether we shall make an exception as to slavery? The
Supreme Court makes no such distinction. It recognizes slaves as
property. When they are taken to a Territory, they are on an equal
footing with other property, and dependent upon the same system of
legislation, for protection, as other property. Whiile all other property is dependent on the Territorial legislation for protection, I hold
that slave property must look to the same authority for its proaction.
SLAVERY DEPPNDENT ON THE LOCAL LAW.
I leave all kinds of property, slaves included, to the local law for
protection; and  I will not exert the power of Congress to inter.
fere with that local law with reference to slave property, or any other
kind of property. If the people think that particular laws on the
subject of property are beneficial to their interests, they will enact
them. If they do not think such laws are wise, they will refrain
from enacting them. They will protect slaves there, provided they
want slavery; and they will want slavery, if the climate be such that
the white man cannot cultivate the soil, so as to render negro compulsory labor necessary.  Hence, it becomes a questioi of climate, of
production, of self-interest, and not a question of legislation, whether
slavery shall, or shall not exist there.
But the senator from Mississippi says hlie has a right to protection.
The owner of every other species of property may say lie has a right
to protection. The man dealing in liquors may think that, inasmuch
as his stock of liquors is property, hle has a right to protection. The
man dealing in an inferior breed of cattle, may think he has a right
to protection; but the people of the Territory may think it is their
interest to improve the breed of stock by discrimination against inferior breeds; and hence they may fix a higher rate of taxation on the
one than on the other.
I am willing to test this question by the illustration the senator
presents of a Maine liquor law. I shall not stop to inquire whether
the Maine liquor law is constitutional or not; first, because Congress
it not the tribunal to decide it; and secondly, because, by the platform
161 
STEPHEN A. DOIGLAS.
to which the senator from Mississippi and myself both stand( pledged
as the rule for our political action, it is provided that that question
shall be sent to the court to test the constitutionality of the law, an~
we shall not come to Congress to repeal the law.  When the Nebraska Bill was first pending in the Senate, it contained the old clause
that the Territorial laws should be sent lhere, and, if disapproved by
Congress, should be void. The discussion proceeded on the basis
that we were conferring the whole power of legislation on the Territory, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, with the
right in the Territorial legislature " to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way;" and that if any sman was aggrieved
by such legislation, he should have a right.to appeal to the Supreme
Court of the United States to test its validity, but should not come
to Congress to repeal the obnoxious law.  Whlen that argument was
made, a distinguished senator from Ohio, not now liere (Mrt. Chase),
asked us why we kept that clause in the bill requiring the laws of the
Territory to be sent here for approval or disapproval. We could not
answer the inquiry, and hence we struck out the provision requiring
the Territorial laws to be sent here for approval or disapproval, upon
the avowed ground, at the time, tlhat the Territorial legislature might
pass just such laws as they wanted, with the right of appeal by any
one aggrieved to the Supreme Court to test their constitutionality,
but not to Congress to annul them. I undertake to Fay that this was
the distinct understanding among the northern and southern Demoerats at that time, and among all the friends of the Kansas Nebraska
Bill.  It was agreed, that while we might differ as to tlhe extent of
tie power of the Territorial legislature on these questions, we would
make a full grant of legislative authority to the legislature of the
Territory, with the right to pass such laws as they chose, and the
right of anybody to appeal to the court to decide upon the validity
and constitutionality of such laws, but not to come to Congress for
their annulment. Hlence, if the Territorial legislature should pass
the Maine liquor law, and anybody was dissatisfied with the provisions of that act, and thought it violated his constitutional riglht, he
could not come to Congress for its annulmnent, but could appeal to
the Supreme Court of the United States; and if that court decided
the law to be constitutional, it must stand, no matter how obnoxious
it might be to any portion of the American people. If it was unconstitutional, it became void without any interference by Congress, or
any other legislative body.   The Kansas Nebraska Bill   as thus
anended for the avowed purpose, at the time, of striking out the
ap)peal to Congress, and substituting the appeal to the court
SUPREME COURT TO SETTLE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION Or
TERRITORIAL POWER.
After we had g)ne that far, a senator from New  Hampst     e
162 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
pointed out in the Nebraska Bill the fact, that no appeal could be
taken to the Supreme Court of the United States unless the amount
of property in controversy was $2,000 in value, an(d hence that a
negro could not appeal for his freedom, nor could the ownier of a
single slave appeal to the Supreme Court to establish his title, if he
thought that his rights were violated.  In order to obviate that objection, we amended the bill by providing that where the title to
property in slaves, or any question of personal freedolmn was the point
in issue, the right of appeal to the Supreme Court should exist with
out reference to the amount in controversy.
Thus the Kansas Nebraska Bill stood, granting all rightful power
of legislation on all subjects whatsoever toltle Territorial legislature,
subject only to the Constitution of the United States, provided they
should not pass any law taxing the property of non-residents higher
than that of residents, nor any law interfering with the,primnary disposition of the soil, nor impose any tax on the property of the United
States; but there was no exception made as to slavery.  The intent
was to confer on the Territorial legislature all the power we had on
the subject of slavery, to let them wield it for or against slavery
as the people of the Territory chose; and the understanding
was, that we would abide by whatever laws they might make, provided they did not violate the C)nstitution of the United States;
and the Supreme Court was the only tribunal that could decide that
question.
STANDS BY THE NEBRASKA BILL.
Now, sir, I stand on the Kansas-Nebraska Bill as it was expounded
and understood at the time, with this full power in the Territorial
legislature, with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court to test
the validity of its laws, and no right whatever to appeal to Congress
to repeal them in the event of our not liking them.  I am ready to
answer the inquiry of the senator from Mississippi, whether, if I
believed the Maine liquor law to be unconstitutional and wrong,
and if a Territorial legislature should pass it, I would vote here to
alnul it?  I tell him no.  If the people of Kansas want a Maine
liquor law, let them  have it.  If they do not want  it, let them
refuse to pass it.  If they do pass it, and  any citizen thinks that
law violates the Constitution, let him make  a case and appeal to
the Supreme Court.  If tide court sustains his objection, the law is
void. If it overrules the objection, the decision must stand until
the people, whQ alone are to be affected by it, who alone have an
interest in it, may choose to repeal it. So I say with reference to
slavery. Let the Territorial legislature pass just such laws in regard
to slavery as they think they have a right to enact under the Constitution of the United States. If I do not like those laws, I will not
vote to repeal them'; if you do not like them, you must not vote to
4
163 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
repeal them; but anybody aggrieved may appeal to the Supreme
Court, and if they are constitutional, they must stand; if they are
unconstitutional, they are void.  That was the doctrine of non-intervention, as it was understood at the time the Kansas-Nebraska Bill
was passed. That is the way it was explained and argued in the
Senate, and in the House of Representatives, and before the country.
It was distinctly understood that Congress was never to intervene for
or against slavery, or for or against any other institution in the Territories; but leave the courts to decide all constitutional questions as
they might arise, and the President to carry the decrees of the court
into effect; and, in case of resistance to his autt.ority in executing
the judicial process, let him use, if necessary, the whole military force
of thle country, as provided by existing laws.
NON-INTERYENTION A DEMOCRATIC SHIBBOLETH.
I know that some gentlemen do not like the doctrine of non-intervention as well as they once did. It is now becoming fashionable to
talk sneeringly of "your doctrine of non-intervention." Sir, that
doctrine has been a fundamental article in the Democratic creed for
years. It has been repeated over and over again in every national
Democratic platform-non-intervention by Congress with slavery in
the States and Territories. Thle Nebraska Bill was predicated on
that idea-the Territorial legislature to have jurisdiction over all
rightful subjects of legislation, not excepting slavery, with no appeal
to Congress, but a right to appeal to the courts; and thle legislation
to be void, if the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional; and
valid, no matter how obnoxiouis, if the court said it was constitutional. Let me call attention to the language of the Kansas-Nebraska
Bill. Its fourteenth section provides:
"That the Constitution and all laws of the United States, which are not
locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect in the said Territory
of Nebraska as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section
of the act'preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union,' approved
March 6, 1820, which, being INCONSISTENTWITH THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION BY CONGRESS WITH SLAVERY in the States AND TERRITORIES, as recognized
by the legislation of 1850, commonly called the Compromise measures, IS HEREBY
DECLARED INOPERATIVE and voiD; it being the true intent and meaning of this
Act not to legislate slavery into any State or TERRITORY, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people THEREOF perfectly FREE TO FORM AND REGULATE
THEIR DOMESTIC INSTITUTIONS IN THEIR OWN WAY, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES."
Thus, in the Nebraska Bill, it is declared that a Congressional enactment on the subject of slavery was inconsistent with the principle
of non-initervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories. This same article of faith has gone into the various Demo-'
cratic platforms, and especially into the Cincinnati platform. Every
164 
TUE LIFE AND SPEECHES O              1
Democrat, therefore, is pledged, by his platform and the organization
of the party, against any legislation of Congress in the Territories for
or against slavery, no matter how obnoxious the Territorial legisla tion may be,  If it is unconstitutional, you have your remedy; go to
the court and test the question. If it is constitutional, you agreed
that the people of a Territory may have it.  I hold- you to the agree ment.
The whole legislative power possessed by Congress over a Territory
was, by that act, conferred on the Territorial legislature. There were
exceptions on three points; but slavery was not one of the exceptions.
I say, then, the intent was to give to the Territorial legislature all the
power that we possessed; all that could be given under the Constitu tion; and the understanding was, that Congress would not interfere
with whatever legislation they might enact.
Now, the senator from Alabama asks me whether the southern
people, under the Constitution, have not the right to carry their
slaves there? I answer, yes —the same right that you have to carry
any other property. Then you ask, have they not a right to hold it
there when they get it there? I answer, the same right that you
have to hold any other property, subject to such local laws as the
local legislature may constitutionally enact. Can you hold any other
property without law to protect it? No. Then, can you hold slave
property without law to pr6tect it I No, is the answer. Then, will
Congress pass laws to protect other property in the Territories? I
answer, no.: We have created Territorial legislatures for that purpo08e. We agreed that this government should not violate the principles of our Revolution, by making laws for a distant people, regulating their domestic concerns and affecting their rights of property,
without giving them a representation.  The doctrine that Congress
is to regulate the rights of person and property, and the domestic
concerns of a Territory, is the doctrine of the Tories of the Revolution. It is the doctrine of George III., and Lord North, his minister.
Our fathers then said that they would not consent tIhat the British
parliament should pass laws touching the local and domestic concerns
of the colonies, the rights of person and property, the family relations
of the people of the colonies, without their consent.  The parliamentof Great Britain said they had the power. We said to tlhem, "y vou
may have the power, but you have not the moral right; it is violative of the great principiles of civil liberty; violative of the rights of
an Englishman, not to be affected in his property without his consent
is given through his representatives." Because Great Britain insi ted
on exercising that identical power over these colonies, our fathers
flew to arms, asserted the doctrine that every colony, every dependency, every Territory, had a right in its own domestic legislature to
pass just such laws as its people chose touching their local and domestic concerns, recognizing the right of the imperial parliament to
regulate imperial affairs, as I do the right of Congress to regulate the
national and federal concerns of the people of a Territory.
165
I 
X'IEPH E N -. DOUG L A..
Sir, I am asserting, on behalf the people of the Territories, just
those rights which our fathers demanded for themselves against the
claim of Great Britain. Because those rights were not granted to
our fathers, they went through a bloody war of seven years.  Am  I
now to be called upon to enforce that same odious doctrine on the
people of a Territory, against their consent? I say, no. Organize a
Territorial government for them; give them a legislature, to be
elected by their own people; give them all the powers of legislation
on all questions of a local and domestic character, subject only to the
Constitution; and if they make good laws, let tlhem eijj(y their blessings; and if they make bad laws, let them suffer under them until
they repeal them. If the laws are unconstitutional, let those aggrieved
appeal to the court-the tribunal created by the Constitution to ascertain that fact.   That is the principle on which we stood iln
1854. It was on that principle and that understanding we tfought the
great political battle and gained the great victory of 1856. How
many votes do you think Mr. Buchanan would have obtained in Pennsylvania if he had then said that the Constitution of the United
States plants slavery in all the Territories, and makes it the duty of
the Federal Government to keep it there and maintain it at the point
of the bayonet and by federal laws, in opposition to the will of the
people?  How many votes would he have received in Ohio, or any
other free State, on such a platform?  Mr. Buchanan did not then
understand the doctrines of popular sovereignty and self-government
ill that way.
I assert that in 1856, during the whole of that campaign, I took
the same position I do now, and none other; and I will show that
Mr. Buchanan pledged himself to the same doctrine when he accepted
the nomination of the Cincinnati Convention. In his letter of acceptance, he says, referring to the Kansas-Nebraska Act:
"The recent legislation of Congress, respecting domestic slavery. derived,
as it has been, from the original and pure fountain of legitimate political
power, the will of the majority, promises ere long to allay the dangerous
excitement.  This legislation is founded upon principles as ancient as free
government itself, and, in accordance with them, has simply declared that the
people of a Territory, like those of a State, shall decide for themselves Whether
slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits."
This extract from SIr. Buchanan's letter, shows that he then understood that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, should
decide for themselves whether slavery should or should not exist
within their limits. I undertake to say, that wherever I went that
ear, his cause was advocated on that principle, as laid down in his
letter of acceptance. The people of the North, at least, certainly
understood him to hold the doctrine of self-government in Territories as well as in States, and as applicable to slave property as well
as to all other species of property. I undertake to say, that he
would not have carried one-half the Democratic vote in any free
State. if he had not been thus understood; and I hope my friend
lob 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
from Mississippi had no allusion to this letter, when he said that in
the next contest he did not desire "to cheat nor be cheated."  I am
glad that the senator from Mississippi means to have a clear, unequi vocal, specific statement of our principles, so that there shall be no
cheating on either side. I intend to use language which. can be
repeated in Chicago as well as in New Orleans, in Charleston the
same as in Boston. We live under a common Constitution. No
political creed is sound or safe which cannot be proclaimed i5 the
same sense wherever the American flag waves over American soil.
If the North and the South cannot come to a common grouna oL;he
slavery question, the sooner we know it the better. The Democracy
of the North hold, at least, that the people of a Territory have the
same right to legislate in respect to slavery, as to all. other property;
and that? practically, it results in this: if they want slavery, they
will have it; and if they do not want it, it shall not be forced upon
them by an act of Congress. The senator from Mississippi says that
doctrine is right, unless we pass an act of Congress compelling the
people of a Territory to have slavery whether they want it or not.
The point he wishes to arrive at, is whether we are for or against
Congressional intervention. If you repudiate the doctrine of nonintervention, and form a slave code by act of Congress, when the
people of a Territory refuse it, you must step off the Democratic platform. We will let you depart in peace, as you no longer belong to
us; you are no longer of us when you adopt the principle of Congressional intervention, in violation of the Democratic creed. I stand
here defending the great principle of non-intervention by Congress,
and self-government by the people of the Territories. That is the
Democratic creed. The Democracy in the northern States have so
understood it. No northern Democratic State ever would have
voted for Mr. Buchanan, but for the fact that he was understood to
occupy that position.
Gentlemen of the southern States, I tell you in all candor that I
do not believe a Democratic candidate can ever carry any one
northern Democratic State on the platform that it is the duty of the
Federal Government to force the people of a Territory to have slavery
when they do not want it. But if the true principles of State 1 ights
snd popular sovereignty be maintained and carried out in good faith,
as set forth in the Nebraska Bill, ard as understood by the peopl* in
1856, a glorious future awaits the I emocracy.
167 
*TNPREN  A. DOULGLAS.
CHAPTER XVI.
WAR OF THE PAMPHLETS.
Leters to Dorr and Peyton-Speeches in Ohio, and Cincinnati Platform Charleston Convention-Presidental Aspirants-The Harper Article Black's Reply-Appendix of Attorney General-Rejoinder of Senator
Douglas-The Chase and Trumbull Amendments-Consistency of Sena
tor Douglas.
DURING the spring and summer of 1859, Mr. Douglas
received many letters from his personal friends, soliciting the
use of his name as a candidate for the Presidency before the
Charleston Convention, to one of which he replied as follows:
WASHINGTON, Wedneday, J1.
MY DEAR SIR: I have received your letter inquiring whether my friends
are at liberty to present my name in the Charleston Convention for the
Presidential nomination.
Before the question can be finally determined, it will be necessary to
understand distinctly upon what issue the canvass is to be conducted. If,
as I have full faith they will, the Democratic party shall determine, in the
Presidential election of 1860, to adhere to the principles embodied in the
Compromise measures of 1850, and ratified by the people in the Presidential election of 1852, and re-affirmed in the Kansas-Nebraska Act of
1854, and incorporated into the Cincinnati platform in 1856, as expounded
by Mr. Buchanan in his letter accepting the nomination, and approved by
the people-in that event my friends will be at liberty to present my
name to the Convention, if they see proper to do so. If, on the contrary,
it shall become the policy of the Democratic party-which I cannot anticipate-to repudiate these, their time-honored principles, on which we
have achieved so many patriotic triumphs, and if, in lieu of them, the
Convention shall interpolate nto the creed of the party such new issues
168 
TKt  LIFE AND &PEEOHES OF
as the revival of the African slave:trade, or a Congressional slave code for
the Territories, or the doctrine that the Constitution of the United States
either establishes or prohibits slavery in the Territories, beyond the
power of the people legally to control it as other property, it is due to
candor to say that, in such an event, I could not accept the nomination if
tendered to me. Trusting that this answer will be deemed sufficiently
xplicit,              I am, very respectfully, your friend,
S. A. DOUGLAS.
To J. l Doss, Esq., Dubuque, Iowa.
The publication of this letter produced immense enthusiasm among Mr. Douglas' friends all over the country, and
particularly throughout the Northwest, and was followed
by a pressing invitation from the Democratic State Central
Committee of Ohio to visit that State and address the people
in their pending canvass. In consequence of the ill-health o
Mr. Douglas and his family, he was only able to make three
speeches in Ohio-at Columbus, Cincinnati and Wooster, ir
each of which places the Democracy made immense gains at
the fall election, averaging one thousand votes in each
county.  He was met in Cincinnati by large numbers o.
Democrats from Kentucky, Indiana, and other adjacent
States, and wherever he went was greeted with the wildest
enthusiasm.
We omit to insert extracts from these speeohes, which arF
among the ablest and best of his political life, for the reasor
that they relate chiefly to the line of argument which hat
been so fully illustrated in the previous pages of this work
These speeches appeared in the columns of the New Yorkr
press the morning after their delivery, having been deemed
of sufficient consequence to be telegraphed entire. A marked
feature of these addresses was his solemn protest against the
incorporation of any new tests of faith into the Democratie
creed which would tend to divide -and defeat the party
insisting upon "the re-adoption of the Cincinnati platform
without the addition of a word or the subtraction of a letter.'
169 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OP
THE HAV.PER ARTICLE.
In the September (1859) number of " Hai-per's Magazine,"
Mr. Douglas published over his own name, an article entitled
"I'opular Sovereignty in the Territories: The Dividing
Line between Federal and Local Authority." This article
was read with avidity by the public, and for some days after
its appearance, nothing else was talked of in political circles.
It is a clear elucidation of the line that divides the authority
of the Federal Government firom that of local authorities; and
of the great principle that every distinct political community,
loyal to the Constitution and the Union, is entitled to all the
rights, privileges, and immunities of self-government in
respect to their local concerns and internal polity, subject
only to the Constitution of the United States. He exposes
the erroneous views entertained by the "Republican" party
on these points: shows that the courts in a Territory derive
all their powers from the Territorial legislature: that all
powers conferred on Congress by the Constitution, must be
exercised by Congress in the manner prescribed in the Con.
stitution; but that Congress may establish local governments,
and invest them with powers which Congress itself cannot
constitutionally exercise.
He shows by the records of the provincial legislature of
Virginia, that in 1772, the Virginians were unwilling to have
slavery forced upon them: that in 1776, the inhuman use of
the royal negative, in refusing the colony of Virginia per
mission to exclude slavery from her limits by law, was one
of the reasons for separating from Great Britain: and that in
all the thirteen colonies, slavery was regarded as a domestic
question, to be considered and determined by each colony to
suit itself, without the intervention of the British parliament.
He froves that the principle of popular sovereignty was at
170 
STEPHEN  A. DOU G LAS.
the v(ery foundation of the causes that led to the Revolution:
showing that the patriots of 1776 fought for the inalienable
right of local self-government, with the clear understanding
that when the despotism of the British parliament was
thrown off, no Congressional despotism was to be substituted
for it.
He proves by a citation of Jefferson's plan for the government of the first Territory ever owned by the United States,
that by it, the right of Congress to bind the people of the
Territories without their consent was emphatically ignored;
and the people therein recognized as the source of all local
power: that in forming the Constitution of the United States
in 1787, the Convention took the British constitution for
their model, conferring upon the Federal Government the
same powers which, as colonies, they had been willing to
concede to the British government, and reserving to the
States and to the people, the rights for which the Revolution
had been fought.  He shows that the clause in the Constitu.
tion which gives to Congress "power to dispose of, and
make all needful rules and regulations for the Territory "refers exclusively to property, in contradistinction to persons
and communities; but does not authorize Congress to interpose or interfere with the internal polity of the people who
may reside upon lands which the United States once owned.
He alludes to the erroneous views that have been put forth
in regard to the Dred Scott case; and shows that the slavery
question was not included in the class of prohibited powers
to which the Constitution alluded. He describes the steps
by which the Compromise measures of 1850 were formed,
and the principles on which they were based; and shows that
they are the same principles upon which the Nebraska Bili of
1854 was formed.
We give a few extracts firom the article, which posssses
a permanent historical value, in the Appendix to this worlk.
171 
172     THE LIFE AND SPEECIIE8 OF
The appearance of the Harper article caused, as has beeo
stated, the most profound sensation in political circles.
The exposition of the question produced consternation
and dismay min the camp of the assailants of Judge Douglas
Their hope was to secure the confidence and favor of tht
outh by conceding their right to plant slavery in the Terri
.ories in opposition to the wishes of the people, and in de
fiance of the Territorial authorities; and at the same time,
satisfy the North by withholding all legislative protection
and judicial remedies, without which the right becomes a
naked, useless, worthless possession. The exposure of Mr.
Douglas opened their eyes to the dangers of their perilous
position, and made it obvious, even to their comprehension,
that they could no longer successfully maintain the ground
they then occupied. Afraid to advance and pursue their
doctrines to their logical consequences, and ashamed to retreat and return to the impregnable position of popular
sovereignty, which they had so recently abandoned, they
began to look about for some new expedient to relieve
themselves from the awkward dilemma into which they had
been driven by one short article in "Harper's Magazine."
Accordingly Judge Black was deputed to frame an answer to
the masterly paper of Mr. Douglas.
The attorney-general's reply to the Harper article  ap
peared in the "Washington Constitution," the central organ
of the assailants of Judge Douglas, in October. A few days
after, Mr. Douglas made a speech at Wooster, in which he
replied to the pamphlet of the attorney-general. The latter
functionary published an appendix to his former article, and
on the 17th of November, Mr. Douglas published a rejoin.
der, from which we make the following extracts:
In my reply to Judge Black I produced and quoted the decisions
of the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the following 
STEPHEN A. DOUdLAS.
propositions were solemnly and authoritatively established as the
law of the land:
1st. That the stat- of slavery is a mere municipal regulation,
founded upon and limited to the range of Territorial laws.
2d. That the laws of one State or country can have no force or
effect in another without its consent, express or implied.
8d. That, in the absence of any positive rule upon the subject,
affirming or denying or restraining the operation of the foreign law
or laws of one State or country in their application to another, the
courts will presume the tacit adoption of them by the government
of the place where they are sought to be enforced, unless they are
repugnant to its policy, or prejudicial to its interests.
The attorney-general neither admits nor denies the correctness
of these propositions, nor does he either admit or deny that the
courts have so decided. To admit their correctness would necessarily
involve an abandonment of his position and a confession that he had
been wrong from the beginning. To deny them would bring him in
direct conflict with the authority of the court and expose him to an
inevitable conviction by the record.
*      *       *       *      *       *       *
Judge Black has not attempted to reconcile his opinion with the
decision of the court. No man in his senses can fail to perceive that
if the court is right, Judge Black is inevitably wrong. Although the
whole legal controversy between Judge Black and myself turns on
this one point, I did not choose, in my reply, to offset my individual
opinion against his, or to bring the two into comparison. As the
4uestion at issue could only be determined by authority, I said:
"Of course I express no opinion of my own, since I make it a rule to acqui
lsce in the decisions of the courts upon all legal questions."
And again, in concluding what I had to say on the legal points at
issue, I added:
"In all that I have said, I have been content to assume the law to be as decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, without presuming that my
individual opinion would either strengthen or invalidate their decisions."
If Judge Black could reconcile it with his dignity and sense of
duty to act on the same assumption, there could be no controversy
between him and me in regard to the law.of the case. According
to the doctrine of the court, a white man, with a negro wile and
mulatto children, under a marriage lawful in Massachusetts, on removal into a Territory. could not maintain that interesting "private
relation," under the laws of Massachusetts, without the consent or
tacit adoption of the Massachusetts law by the Territorial government.  On the contrary, if Judge Black's view of the axiomatic prin.
173 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
ciple of public law be correct, this disgusting and demoralizing system
of amalgamation may be introduced and maintained in the Territories
under the law of Massachusetts. in defiance of the wishes of the
people and( in contempt of all Territorial authority, until "they get a
constitutional convention or the machinery of a State government ir
their hands." It is true that Judge Black limits this right td those
places where there is no law "in direct conflict with it;" but he also
says in the same pamphlet that the Territories "have no attribute of
sovereignty about them," and, therefore, are incapable of making
any law in conflict with this "private relation" which is lawful in
Massachusetts.
According to the doctrine of the court, a Turk, with thirteen
wives, under a marriage lawful in his own country, could not move
into the Territories of the United States with his family and maintain his marital rights under the laws of Turkey without the consent
or tacit adoption of the Turkish law by the Territorial government.
In accordance with the B.lack doctrine (I use the termn for convenience and with entire respect), polygamy may be introduced into
all the territories, maintained under the laws of lTuikey, " until the
people of the Territory get a coiistitutioiial convention or the machinery of a State government into their hands," with competent
authority to make laws in conflict with this' private relation."
According to the doctrine of the court, the peddler with his
clocks, the liquor-dealer with his whiskies, the merchant -with his
goods, and the master with his slaves, on removal to a Territory, cannot hold, protect, or sell their property under the laws of the
States whence they came, respectively, without the consent or tacit
adoption of thlose laws by the Territorial goverinment.
According to the Black doctrine, however, any one person, black
or white, from any State of the Union, and from any country upon
the globe, mnay remove into the Territories of the United States, and
carry with him the law of the State or country whence hlie caine, for
the protection of any " right of property, private relation, condition,
or status, lawfully existing in such State or country."' without the
consent and in defiance of the authority of the Territorial government, and maintain the same " until they get a constitutional convention or the machinery of a State government into tleir lands."
This is the distinct issue between Judge Black and thle Supiein
Court of the United States.  It is not an issue between tlhe att(orney-general and myself, for in the beginning of the controversy I
announced my purpose "to assume the law to be as decided by tlhe
court, without presuminr)g that my individual opinion wound either
strengthen or invalidate their decisions."''
**         *      *       *       *          *
But if it be true, as contended by Judge Black, that the Territoi iel
cannot legislate upon the subject or slavery, or any other right of
property, I)rivate relation, condition, or stat.,t; lawfully existing is
I
174 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.       1
another State or country, it necessarily results that the Territ:o ial l 
gislature cannot adopt the laws of other States or countries for the
protection of such rights and institutions, and consequently that the
courts cannot presume the tacit adoption of such laws by the Territorial government in the absence of any power to adopt them. Here,
again, we see that the doctrine of Judge Black, if it does not conclusively establish a right without the possibility of a remedy, is
certainly equivalent to tlhe'Wilmot Proviso in its practical results, so
far as the institution of slavery is concerned. I demonstrated this
proposition to him in my "reply" so conclusively that he did not
venture to deny it, much less attempt to answer the argument in his
"rejoinder."
I do not deem it necessary to notice in detail the many strange
and unaccountable misrepresentations in his "rejoinder" of the matters of fact and law set forth in my "reply," to which he was professing to respond. One or two instances will suffice as specimens
of the manner in which the attorney-general is in the habit of disposing of authorities which stand as insuperable obstacles in the path.
of his argument. In my" reply " I quoted the following paragraph
from Judge Story's "' Conflict (of Laws," to show that he, at least,
thought the law was precisely the reverse of what Judge Black supposed it to be:
"There is a uniformity of opinion among foreign jurists and foreign tribunals
in giving no effect to the state of slavery of a party, whatever it may have been
in the country of his birth, or that in which he had been previously domiciled
unless it is also recognized by the laws of the country of his actual domicil. anL
where he is found, and it is sought to be enforced.  [After citing various all
thorities, Judge Story proceeds:]  In Scotland the like doctrine has been
solemly adjudged.  The tribunals of France have adopted the same rule, even
in relation to slaves coming from and belonging to their own colonies. This is
also the undisputed Iaw of England."
Now for Judge Black's reply to these passages from Judge Story:
"These passages (will the reader believe it?) merely show that a
slave becomes free when taken to a country where slavery is NOT
TOLERATED by law!" Substituting the words "not tolerated by law"
for the words "unless it is also recognized by law," Judge Black
reverses Judge Story's meaning, and makes that learned jurist declare
the law to l)e precisely the reverse of what Judge Story stated it to
be!  " Will the reader believe it?"  Not content with changing the
language and reversing the meaning, and citing it, in its altered form,
as evidence that I had misapplied the quotation, the attorney-general has the audacity to exclaim in parenthesis, for the purpose of
giving greater emphasis to his allegation, "will the reader believe
it?"   Judge Black cannot avoid the responsibility which justly
attaches to such conduct by the pretence that slavery was prohibited
by law in Scotlaiid, England and France for the reason that the
reports of the cases show that the laws of those countries were silent
namn the sul!iect, and that the decisions w-re made upon thle ditied
12
175 
176    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
ground that there was no law recognizing slavery, and not upon the
ground that it was prohibited by law.
.*         *        *         *         *        *        *
I will now devote a few words to a more pleasing and agreeable
duty, by presenting to the public some of the beneficial results of
this discussion. The attorney-general has been forced, by the exi gencies of the controversy, step by step and with extreme reluctance,
to make several important confessions, which necessarily involve an
abandonment, on the part of his clients, of various pernicious hereles
L'h which the country has been threatened for the last two years.
First, that slavery exists in the Territories by virtue of the Consti tt?tion of the United States.... Hence, we find on the second
page of Judge Black's pamphlet these emphatic words:" The Con ititution certainly does not establish slavery in the Territories or any where else. Yobody in this country ever thought or said so."
This confession is ample reward for all the labor that the article in
"Harper's Magazine" cost me, protesting, however, that I am ac quainted with no rule of Christian morality which justifies gentlemen
in saying "that nobody in this country ever thought or said so,"' in
the face of Mr. Buchanan's Silliman letter and Lecompton message.
This confession is presumed to have the sanction of the President
and his cabinet, and therefore may be justly regarded as an official
and authoritative abandonment of the pernicious heresy with which
the country has been irritated for the last two years, that slavery
exists in the Territories by virtue of the Constitution of the United
States.
*,       *        *                             
Another political heresy, which is in substance, although not in
terms, abandoned in Judge Black's rejoinder, is " that the Territories
have no attribute of sovereignty about them."
It will be recollected that in my Harper article I drew a parallel
between our Territories and the American Colonies, and showed
that each possessed the exclusive power of legislation in respect to
their internal polity; that, according to our American theory, in
contradistinction to the European theory, this right of self-government was not derived from the monarch or government, but was
inherent in the people.
*        *        *        *         *        *  
In reply, Judge Black argued that this claim involved the possession of sovereignty by the people of the Territories; that "they have
no attribute of sovereignty about them;" that "they are public corporations established by Congress to manage the local affairs of the
inhabitants, like the government of a city established by a State legislature;" that "there is probably no city in the United States
whose powers are not larger than those of a federal Territory;" and
in fact, adopting the Tory doctrine of the Revolution, that all political
power is derived from the crown or government, and not inherent
in the people.
'01 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 
In ay reply I showed that the people of the Territories do pass
laws for the Protection of life, liberty and property, and, in pursuance
of those laws, do deprive the citizen of life, liberty and property,
whenever the same become forfeited by crimes; that they exercise
the sovereign power of taxation over all private property within
their limits, and divest the title for non-payment of taxes; that they
exercise the sovereign p)ower of creating corporations, municipal,
public and private; that they possess'"legislative power" over "all
rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution and
the organic act;" and I quoted the language of Chief Justice Marsha]l, in delivering the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court, that
"all legislative powers appertain to sovereignty."
Now let us see with what bad grace and worse manners, and yet
how completely the attorney-general backs down fromhhis main position, that the Territories "have no attribute of sovereignty about
them:"
"Every half-grown boy in the country who has given the usual amount of
study to the English tongue, or who has occasionally looked into a dictionary
knows that the sovereignty of a government consists in its uncontrollable right
to exercise the highest power. But Mr. Douglas tries to clothe the Territories
with the' attributes of sovereignty,' not by proving the supremacy of their
jurisdiction in any matter or thing whatsoever, but merely by showing that
they may be, and some of them have been, authorized to legislate within certain limits, to exercise the right of eminent domain, to lay and collect taxes for
territorial purposes, to deprive a citizen of life, liberty or property, as a punishment for crime, and to create corporations.  All this is true enough, but it
does by no means follow that the provisional government of a Territory is,
therefore, a sovereign in any sense of the word.'
ABSURDITIES OF BLACK'S ARGUMENTS.
So he surrenders at last. This discussion furnishes a single example of what perseverance can accomplish. It has taken a long time
to drive the attorney-general into the admission that the people of
a Territory are clothed with the LAW-MAKING rOWER;  with the right
"to legizslate within certain limits" (that is to say, upon "all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution"); with
"the right of eminent domain, to lay and collect taxes for Territorial
purposes, to deprive a citizen of life, liberty, and property, as a punshinent for crime, and to create corporations."   I am not quite
sure that "every half-grown boy in the country who has given' tile
usual amount of study to the English tongue, or has occasionally
looked into a dictionary," does know that these powers are all "attributes of sovereignty;" but I am very confident that no respectable
court, jurist, or lawyer, "on this side of China " (Judge Black alone
excepted), ever exposed their ignorance by questioning it, much less
had the audacity to deny it. Since the fact is admitted, that the
Territories do possea,  and may rightfully exercise those "legislative
powers" which are I ecognized throughout the civilized world  as Ie
177 
178     THE LIF.E AND'SPEECIES OF
very highest attributes of sovereignty-the power over life, liberty
and property-I shall not waste time in disputing with the attorney
general about the name by which he chooses to call them. It is
sufficient for my purpose that I have at last forced him into the admission that the law-making power over all rightful subjects of legislation appertaining to life, liberty, and property, resides in, and may
be rightfully exercised by the Territories, subject only to the limitations of the Constitution.
This brings to my notice another important confession in Judge
Black's rejoinder, intimately connected with the preceding, wlhich is:
THAT IT IS AN INSULT TO THE AMERIOAN PEOPLE TO. SUPPOSE THAW
THE PEOPLE OF ANY ORGANIZED TERRITORY WOULD ABUSE THE RIGHT
OF SELF-GOVERNMENT IF IT WERE CONCEDED TO THEM.
This last confession, taken in connection with the previous admission of the power, removes the last vestige of any substantial objection to the doctrine of popular sovereignty in the Territories. Unable
to make any plausible argument against it in theory and upon principle, as explained in "Harper's Magazine," Judge Black expended
all the powers and energies of his intellect in his first painphlet to
render the doctrine odious and detestable upon the presumption of its
probable practical results.  He argued that it might result in "legislative robbery;" that " they may take every kind of property in mnere
caprice, or for any purpose of lucre or malice, without process of law,
and without providing for cotmpensation;" that "they may order the
miners to give up every ounce of gold that has been dug at Pike's
Peak;" that they may "license a band of marauders to despoil the
emigrants crossing the Territory."
These were the arguments employed by the attorney-general, in
the beginning of this controversy, to render thl)e doctrine of popular
sovereignty odious and detestable in the eyes of all honest men, and
to prepare the minds of the people for the favorable reception of his
new doctrine, that property in the Territories must be protected
under the laws of the State whence the owner removed. Very soon,
however, the lawyers began to amtluse themselves and the public by
exposing the folly and absurdity of the pretence that the Territorial courts could apply the judicial remedies prescribed by the
legislature of Kentucky, or of any other State.  Becoming ashamed
of his position, Judge Black wrote an appendix to his pamphlet, in
which he declared that while the "title which the owner acquired in
the State" from whence he removed must be respected in the Territory, " THE ABSURD INFERENCE which some persons have drawn from
it is not true, that the master also takes with him the JUDICIAL REMEDS which were furnished him at the place where his title was acIaired," and that " the respective rights and obligations of the parties
must be protected and enforced by the law prevailing at ths place
&4ere they are supposed to be violated."
,y this time it was my turn to reply, when I showed that his (ldoo1,,   if true, established a RIGHT WITROurr A REMEDY, and if the 
STrEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
rseople of the Territories could not be trusted in the management of
their own affairs, and in the protection of life, liberty, and property,
they could not be relied tupon to provide the remedies! This reply
was made in good faith, and believed to be pertinent to the issue
and fatal to his position. Instead of receiving it in good temper,
obviating the force of it by fair argument, if it were possible for him
to do so, he flies into a rage and denies that he "said that an emigrant to a Territory had a righlt to his property without a remedy,"
and that "it is an insult to the American people to suppose that any
community can be organized within the limits of our Union who will
tolerate such a state of things."  Listen to his patriotic indignation
at the bare suggestion that the people of the Territories cannot be
trusted to guard and protect the rights of property and provide the
remedies:
"I never said that an immigrant tc a Territory had a right to his property
without a remedy; but I admit that he must look for his remedy to the law of
his new domicil. It is true that he takes his life, his limbs, his reputation, and
his property, and with them he takes nothing but his naked right to keep there
and enjoy them. He leaves the judicial remedies of his previous domicil behind
him.  It is also true that in a Territory just beginning to be settled, he may
need remedies for the vindication of his rights above all things else. In his
new home there may be bands of base marauders, without conscience or the
fear of God before their eyes, who are ready to rob and murder, and spare
nothing that man or woman holds dear. In such a time it is quite possible to
imagine an abolition legislature whose members owe their seats to Sharpe's
rifles and the money of the Emigration Aid Society. Very possibly a legislature so chosen might employ itself in passing laws unfriendly to the rights of
honest men and friendly to the business of the robber and the murderer. I
concede this, and Mr. Douglas is entitled to all the comfort it affords him.
But it is an insult to the American people to suppose, that any community can
be organized within the limits of our Union, who will tolerate such a state
of things."
Why did Judge Black insult the American people by supposing and
assuming that they would do these things if left free to regulate their
own internal polity and domestic affairs in their own way? It was
deemed a necessary expedient in order to render popular sovereignty
and its advocates odious and detestable.  Why then did he, in the
course of the saine discussion, turn round and say it was an insult to
the American people to suppose that the people of the Territories
would do those things when allowed to regulate their own affairs in
their own way?  This, too, was in turn deemed a necessary expedient in order to avoid the horn of the dilemma into which lie had
been fairly driven, and escape the odium of an attempt to deceive the
southern people, of which he had been fairly convicted of advocating
a "right without a remedy."
To what desperate shifts will men resort or be driven when they
deliberately abandon principle FOR expediency? No more striking
or humiliating illustration of this truth was ever given than this con
troversy presents. Each change of ground, every shifting of position
has been done as an expedient to avoid what at the time was deemed
179 
180     THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
a worse alternative. The ground on which Mr. Buchanan was elected,
that "the people of a Territory, like those of a State, shall decide for
-themselves whether  slavery shall or shall not exist within their
limits," was changed, and in lieu of it the position assumed that
"slavery exists in the Territories by virtue of the Constitution," as
an expedient to obtain the support of certain southern ultras and
fire-eaters who had always opposed popular sovereignty, on the supposition that without such support Mr. Buchanan's administration
would be in a minority in the two houses of Congress. The confes sion that "the Constitution certainly does not establish slavery in
the Territories, nor anywhere else," was made, and the position that
slavery may be protected in the Territories under the laws of other
States, assumed as an expedient to avoid the necessity of supporting
a Congressional slave code. The confession that the people of the
Territories may exercise legislative powers over all righful subjects
of legislation, pertaining to life, liberty, and property, was made as
an expedient to avoid the odium of advocating a right without a
remedy, by showing that the Territorial legislatures might lawfully
and rightfully pass all laws and prescribe all judicial remedies necessary for the protection of property of every description, slavery included. The declaration that it is an insult to the American people
to suppose that the people of the Territories, when left free to manage their own affairs in their own way, would be guilty of "legislative robbery," would confiscate private property, seize it in mere
spite, etc., was deemed a necessary expedient for the purpose of
proving that the people might safely be trusted to furnish the protection and provide the remedies without which slaves could not be
held and slave property protected in the Territories under the laws
of other States.
*        *        *        *         *        *        *
Turning from Judge Black to Dr. Gwin, it is but respectful to say a
few words upon his letter, which illuminated the columns of the celltral organ of my assailants the day previous to Judge Black's rejoinder. The identity of language, thought, and style, which pervades
the two productions, while rejecting the idea that they could have
been written with the same pen, furnishes conclusive evidence that
great men will think alike when in the same vein. For example  Dr. Gwin says:
"The difference BETWEEN MR. DOUGLAS AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, sug.
talned by this decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, is this,"
etc., etc.
Judge Black says:
"The whole dispute (as far as it is a doctrinal dispute) BETWEEN ({R. DOU.
LAS AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY lies substantially in these two propositions," etc.,
etc.
This coincidence, without wearying the reader with other exam.
ples, will suffice to show the unity of purpose and harmony of design 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
with which my assailants pursue me. To separate "Mr. Douglas "
from the "Democratic party" seems to be the patriotic end to which
they all aim. They may as well make up their minds to believe, if
they have not already been convinced of the fact by the bitter experience of the last two years, that the thing cannot be donc. I gave
them notice, at the initial point of this crusade, that no mani or set of
men on earth, save one, could separate me from the Democratic
arty; and as I was that one, and the only one who had the power,
did not intend to do it myself nor permit it to be done by others!
At this point (Nov. 7), Mr. Douglas was forced to stop
writing by a seve reattack of inflammatory rheumatism, which
soon prostrated him with a dangerous illness, from which he
was not expected at one time to recover.  In a moment of
consciousness he directed the unfinished manuscript to be
taken to the printer, with a note which concludes as follows:
"I am too feeble, however, to add more.  Here let the controversy
close for the present, and perhaps for ever."
THE CHASE AND TRUMBULL AMENDT.
We cannot close this chapter without referring to "the
record" to which Mr. Douglas alludes in his brief "note"
as wishing to comment on in reply to Mr. Gwin. It will
be found in the  "Congressional  Globe"  of the  First
Session of the thirty-third Congress, vol. xxviii. It corn.
pletely exposes the attempted trickery of the Chase amend.
ment.   It shows what the Senate regarded as the true
meaning of that clause in the Kansas Nebraska Bill which
left the people of the Territories perfectly fiee "to form and
regulate their domestic institutions in their own way," and
that that meaning was, in the language of Senator Badger, "an
unrestricted and unreserved reference to the -Territorial
authorities or theveople themselves to determine uponthe
guestion of stavery."'
After the appearance of the Harper article, Mr. Gwin of
California endeavored to produce the impression that neither
181 
182    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES O F
Mr. Douglas nor other senators understood, when the Kansas
Nebraska Bill was before them, that the people of the Terri.
tories could legislate on the subject of slavery during the
Territorial condition; and that had senators so understood
the bill, it would have destroyed the measure; and further,
that Mr. Douglas, if he took a different view of the bill from
that, acted in bad faith to the Senate and the country in not
saying so "before the bill became a law."
The records of Congress show the very reverse of this to be
the fact. The record shows that both Mr. Douglas and the
Democratic as well as other senators understood the Kansas
Nebraska Bill to mean that the people of the Territories,
while in the Territorial condition, could legislate on slavery
as on any other domestic affair. It shows, also, that both
Mr. Chase's amendment and Mr. Trumbull's amendment
were legislative tricks, gotten up for political effect outside
of Congress.
As the Kansas Nebraska Bill stood before Mr. Chase
offered his amendment, it read:
It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate
slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but
to leave the people therein perfectly free to formn and regulate their
domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. Chase's amendment proposed to add these words:
Under which the people of the Territory, through their appropriate representatives, may, if they see fit, prohibit the aristence of 8la.
vory therein.
Mr. Chase made a brief speech in support of his amend
menit, ill the course of which he said:
After I have obtained a vote upon this question, I shall want to
know, and if no other senator shall do it, I will move amendments
calculated to ascertain, whether it be intended to give the principle
of non-intervention asserted by tlhe bill full scope. If it is to badopted, I want to see it adopted add fully carried out. 
STEPREN A. DOUGLAS.
MR. PRATT said: Mr. President, the principle which tle senator
from Ohio adopts as the Principle of his amendment, is that the ques tion shall be left entirely and exclusively to the people whether they
will prohibit slavery or not. Now, for the purpose of testing the sin cerity of the senator, and for the purpose of deducing the principle of
his amendment correctly, I propose to amend it by inserting'after the
word "prohibit" the words "or introduce," so that if my amend ment be adopted, and the amendment of the senator from Ohio as so
amended be introduced as part of the bill, the principle which he
says he desires to have tested will be inserted in the bill-that the
people of the Territories shall have power to prohibit or introduce
slavery as they may see proper. I suppose the question will be taken
on the amendment which I offer to the amendment.
AIR. SEWARnD.-Is an amendment to an amendment to an amend ment in order?
MR. CHAsE. —The amendment which I offered is an amendment to
an amendment.
TaE  PRESIDING OFFICER.-Thlie amendment of the senator fi'om
Maryland is not now in order.
MR. PRATT.-Perhaps the senator from Ohio will accept it.
MR. CHASE, in the course of his reply, said: Now, sir, I desire to
have the sense of the Senate on the question, whether the Territorial
legislattures to which'you propose to refer this great question-vital
to the future destiny of the people who are to emigrate into these
Territories-can, subject to the Constitution, protect themselves, if
they see fit to do so, from slavery. The senator fi'om Maryland. Mr.
Pratt, has proposed an amendment to my amendment.  I cannot
accept it, but it will be entirely within the power of the Senate to
agree to his if they see fit to do so.
MR. SHIELDS.-If the honorable senator will permit, I will suggest
to him, if he wishes to test- that proposition, to put the converse as
suggested by the honorable senator from Maryland, and then it will
be a fair proposition. Let the senator fiom Ohio accept thle amendment of the senator from Maryland for the purpose of testing the
question.
MR. CHASE.-I was about to state why  I could not accept the
amendment of the senator from Maryland. I have no objection that
the vote shall be taken on it, and it is probable that it would receive
the sanction of a majority here, but with my views of the Constitution, I cannot vote tor it. I do not believe that a' Territorial legis.
lature, though it may have power to protect the people against
slavery, is constitutionally competent to introduce it.
Senator Badger, of North Carolina, took SIr. Chase in
hand, and exposed the insincerity of the Ohio senator, and
also told what was the true meaning of the bill.  He said:
Mr. President, I have understood, I find, correctly the purport (
183 
184    THE LIFE AND SPEErCHES OF
the amendment offered by the honorable senator from Ohic The
purposes of the amendment, and the effect of the amendment, if
adopted by the Senate, and standing as it does, are clear and obvious.
The effect of the amendment, and the design of the amendment, are
to overrule and subvert the very proposition introduced into the bill
upon the motion of the chairman of the Committee on Tekritories,
(Mr. Douglas.)  Is not that clear?  The position, as it stands, s a,
unrestricted and unreserved reference to the Territorial authorities,
or the people themselves, to determine upon the question of slavery;
and, therefore, by the very terms, as well as by the obvious meaning
and legal operations of that amendment (of Mr. Pratt), TO ENAB].
THEM EITHER TO EXCLUDE OR TO INTRODUCE OR TO ALLOW SLAVERY.
If; therefore, the amendment proposed by the senator from Ohio
were appended to the bill in the connection in which he introduces
it, the necessary and inevitable effect of it would be to control and
limit the language which the Senate had just put into the bill, and to
give it this construction, that though Congress leaves them to regulate their own domestic institutions as they please, yet in regard to
the subjeet matter of slavery, the power is confined to the exclusion or
prrohibition of it. I say this is both the legal effect and the manifest
design of the amendment. The legal effect is obvious upon the
statement; the design is obvious upon the refusal of the gentleman
to incorporate in his amendment what was suggested by my honorable friend from Maryland, the propriety and fairness of which were
instantly seen by my friend from Illinois (Mr. Shields.)
*    *    *,*    *    *    *        *    *    *
I have no hesitation, therefore, in saying that I shall vote against
the amendment of the senator from Ohio.  The clause as it stands
is ample. It submits the whole authority to the Territory to 5etero
mine for itself. That in my judgment is the place where it ought to
be put. If thepeople of these Territories choose to exclude slavery, so
far from  considering it a wrong done to me or to my constituents, 1
shall not complain of it.  It is their own bsiness."
*   *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *
TIhe question being taken by yeas and nays on the amend.
ment of Mr. Chase, it resulted yeas 10, nays 36.
YEAs-Messrs. Chase, Dodge of Wis., Fessenden, Fish, Foote,
ifamlin, Seward, Smith, Sumner and Wade-10.
NAYs-Messrs. Adams, Atchison. Badger, Bell, Benjamin, Brodhead, Brown, Butler, Clay, Clayton, Dawson, Dixon, Dodge of Iowa,
Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Gwin, Houston, Hunter, Johnson, JoiIeq
of Iowa, Jones of Tennessee, Mason, Morton, Norris, Pettit, Pratt,
Rusk, Sebastian, Shields, Slidell, Stuart, Toucey, Walker, Weller and
W illiams-36.
And so the amendment was rejected. It will be observed 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
that Dr. Gwin, who quotes Mr. Douglas' vote against the
Chase amendment as conclusive evidence that the Nebraska
Bill was not intended to confer on the Territorial legislature
the power of introducing or excluding slavery, was present
participating in these proceedings, without uttering one
word of dissent or disapprobation of the speeches of Messrs.
Pratt, Shields and Badger, when the latter declared that the
bill as it stood without the Chase amendments " submits the
whole authority to the Territorial legislature to determine
for itself," "and that if the people of these Territories choose
to exclude slavery, so far from my considering it a wrong
done to me or my constituents, I shall not complain of it-it
is their own business."
The reader will doubtless be curious to know why it happened that so many of the senators who participated in the
removal of Mr. Douglas from the chairmanship of the Committee on Territories for construing the Nebraska Bill in the
same mamnner as Mr. Badger construed it the day before it
received their votes, could have remained silent in their
places without one word of dissent or protest.
The Trumbull proposition referred to by Dr. Gwin, was
offered as an amendment to the bill for the admission of
Kansas into the Union as a State, two years after the passage
of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and was rejected solely upon the
ground that it was irrelevant to the bill for the admission of
a State, and not because it did not declare the true intent
and meaning of the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
It was in the following words:
And be itfurther enacted:  That the provision in the act "to organize the Territories of
Kansas  and Nebraska," which declares it to be "the true intent
and meaning of said act not to legislate slavery into any Territory
or State, or to exclude  it therefrom,  but  to leave  the people
thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic insti
tutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of
the United States," was intended to and does confer upon or leav
185 
186    THE LIFE AND SPErECHES OF
to the people of the Territory of Kansas full power at any time
through its Territorial legislature to exclude slavery from said Territory, or to recognize or regulate it therein.
The official report of the proceedings on this amendment
(see App. to "Cong. Globe," July 2d, 1856) shows that this
amendment was discussed by Senators Benjamin, Trumbull,
Fessenden, Cass, Douglas, Bigler, Toucey, Hale, Seward and
Bayard, and that no one of them denied or intimated that the
amendment did not declare the true intent and meaning of
the original act, and that those who opposed it did so upon
the ground that it was irrelevant to the bill under consideration.
MR. CASS said: Now, in respect to myself, I suppose the Senate
knows clearly my views.  I believe the original act gave the Territo rial legislature of Kansas full power to exclude or allow slavery.
... This being my view, I shall vote against the amendment.
MR. DOUGLAS said: The reading of the amendment inclines my
mind to the belief, that in its legal effect it is precisely the same with
the original act, and almost in the words of that act. Hence, I should
have no hesitancy in voting for it, except that it is putting on this
bill a matter which does not belong to it.
MR. BIGLER said: Now, sir, I am not prepared to say what the
intention of the Congress of 1854 was, because I was not a member
of that Congress. I will not vote on this amendment, because I
should not know that my vote was expressing the truth. I agree too,
with the senator from Michigan (Mr. Cass), and the senator from
Illinois (Mr. Douglas), that this is substantially the law as it now
exists.
MR. TovcrxY said: Now, I object to this amendment as suLperfluous, nugatory, worse than that, as giving grounds for misrepresentation.  It leaves the subject precisely where it is left in the KansaNebraska Bill.
MR. BAYARD said: I have an objection to the amendment proposed
by the honorable senator from Illinois (Mr. Trumbull), which to me
would be perfectly sufficient, independent of any other: and that is,
it is nothing more or less than an attempt to give a judicial exposition
by the Congress of the United States to the Constitution; and I hold
that they have no right to usurp judicial power.
The question being taken by yeas and nays on the ameed
ment, resulted, ayes 11, nays 34, as follows: 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Bell, of N. H., Collamer, Durkee, Fessen
den, Foote, Foster, Hale, Seward, Truinbull and Wade-11.
NAYs-Messrs. Adams, Bayard, Benjamin, Biggs, Bigler, Bright,
Brodhead, Brown, Cass, Clay, Grittenden, Dodge, Douglas, Evans,
Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson, Jones, of Iowa, Mallory, Mason, Pratt, Pugh, Reid, Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Thomnpson,
of Kentucky, Toombs, Toucey, Weller, Wright and Yulee-34.
So the amendment was rejected.
Upon this transcript from the records we have three corn.mments to make, which cannot fail to impress the reader.
First, That during this whole debate no senator pretended
that Mr. Trumbull's amendment did not declare the true
intent and meaning of the Nebraska Act, according to its
legal effect and plain reading.
Second, That every senator who spoke against the amendment, assigned as the sole reason for his vote, either that it
was irrelevant or an attempt by Congress to usurp judicial
power.
Third, That the senators who arraigned and condemned
Mr. Douglas as too unsound to be chairman of the Territorial Committee for no other reason than that he then construed the Kansas-Nebraska Act the same as previously,
listened to this debate without one word of dissent,
and  by  their  silence  acquiesced  in  the  construction
which the author of the bill distinctly affirmed in their
presence.  Indeed, it may be said that this construction
of the act was unanimously affirmed by the Senate, on this
occasion-the Republicans assenting to it by their votes in
favor of the amendment, and all the others by their acquiescence in the reasons assigned by Messrs. Cass, Douglas,
Bayard, Bigler and Toucey for voting against it. If, however,
the senators should attempt to escape the conclusion under
cover of the reasons assigned by Mr. Bayard, that the
amendment was "nothing more or less than an attempt to
give a judicial exposition, by the Congress of the United
187 
188    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
States, to the Constitution," and "that they have no ri,
to usurp judicial power," with what consistency could the
gentlemen meet in secret caucus and propose resolutions, to
be offered in open Senate, as a platform for the Charleston
Convention; thus "giving a judicial exposition," by the
caucus and the Senate, to the Constitution, on the identical
point which Mr. Bayard denounced as "a usurpation of
judicial power," and in the justice of which denunciation
they all appeared at the time to acquiesce? 
STIZPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
CHAPTER XVII.
PROTECrION OF STATES FROM INVASION-THE SENATORIAL
CAUCUS.
Great Speech of Mr. Douglas on the Harper's Ferry Invasion-Anxiety to
hear him-His Speeches in Reply to Senators Fessenden, Jeff. Davis,
and Seward-The Caucus of Senators-Their Utopian Platform.
THE first session of the 36th Congress met on the first Mon.
day in December, 1859. The great practical measure of the
session was the proposition of Mr. Douglas, embraced in the
resolution which he offered on the 16th of January, 1860,
instructing the Judiciary Committee to report a bill to pro.
tect each State firom invasion by people of other States.
A day or two before the introduction of this resolution, a
sharp passage at arms took place in the Senate between Mr.
Douglas and Messrs. Clay, Jeff. Davis, and Green, which is
thus described by the correspondent of the " New York
Herald:"
MR. PUGn, of Ohio, a sharp, keen, and plucky debater, and the
right-hand man of Mr. Douglas, brought the controversy to a focus.
There was a good deal of cross-firing and sharp-shooting against the
doctrines and speeches of the Little Giant, from Green, Iverson,
Clay, Davis, Gwin, and other southsiders, till at length the Little
Giant himself was brought to the floor.
He complained of ill-health; but he never looked better in his life
-never appeared fresher in the ring, and never acquitted himself
more to the admiration of his friends. He was like a stag at bay,
and right and left he dashed among his pursuers. It is useless here
to repeat this branch of the debate. It was the feature of the day
and of the session.
189 
1930    THE ILIFE AND SPEECHES OF
Mr. Douglas announced to-day that he will abide by the decision
of the convention, for the sake of the Democratic party,; though he
will not accept its nomination except upon the doctrine of popular.
sovereignty, as enunciated in the Cincinnati platform.
EXTRACTS FROM THE DEBATE.
This was Mr. Douglas's first appearance in the Senate after
his severe and protracted illness, and it was thought rather'
ungenerous in these senators to make a combined and con
certed attack upon him under the circumstances.  It is conceded, however, by all who listened to the debate, that he
never bore himself more gallantly or came out of a contest
more successfully. The objects of the assaults upon him were
to justify his removal from the Committee on Territories,
upon the ground that he held opinions incompatible with the
Democratic creed. We give several extracts from this important debate.
In reply to Mr. Davis of Mississippi, Mr. Douglas said:
I have never complained of my removal from the chairmanship
of the Committee on Territories, and I never intended to allude te
that subject in this body; but I do assert that the record proves that
the Senate knew for eleven years that I held the identical opinions
which I expressed in my Freeport speech, and which are now alleged
as the cause of my removal; and during that period, with a full
knowledge of those opinions, which were repeated over and over
again in this body, within the hearing of every member of the Senate, I was, by the unanimous vote of the body, made chairman of
that committee, being reelected each year for eleven years. The
cause now assigned for my removal is that I hold the identical
opinions to-day that I held and repeatedly expressed during that
whole period. If this be the true state of the facts, what does it
prove? Simply, that those who removed me changed at the end of
the eleven years, and I was not sound because I did not change as
suddenly as they.  My only offence consists in fidelity to the principles that I had avowed during that whole period. If at the end of
that time niy opinions were incompatible with those of a majority 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLASB.
it shows that the majority had changed their policy but that I had
not changed my opinions.
Mr. Green answered by charging that Mr. Douglas, in
1856, had declared in the Senate that the question, in respect
to the extent of the power of a Territorial legislature over
the subject of slavery, was a judicial question, which could
be alone authoritatively determined by the Supreme Court
)f the United States.
Mr. Douglas, in reply, said:
In 1856 I did say it was a judicial question, and I said it over and
over again before 1856. I have said it since that time. I declared
in my Illinois speeches that it was a judicial question, I have declared
the same thing in every publication I have made during the last
year.  I assert, now, that it is a judicial question.  The point is that
for years it was no want of soundness in principle that I held one
side of that judicial question while others held the opposite. I-assert
that the Senate did know which side of the judicial question I held.
But I have always said that I would abide the decisions of the Supreme Court, not only as a matter of policy but from'considerations
of duty. I take the law as expounded by the Supreme Court, I receive the Dred Scott decision as an authoritative exposition; but I
deny that the point now under consideration has been decided in the
Dred Scott case. There is no one fact in that case upon which it
could have arisen. The lawyers engaged on each side never dreamt
that it did arise in the case. It is offensive and injurious to the
reputation of the court to say that they decided a great question which
had been the Subject of agitation to the evtent of convulsing the
whole country, when it did not arise in the case, and when it was
not argued by counsel. Sir, it would prove the court unworthy to
decide the great question in a civilized country if it would take cognizanceof a case when there was no fact upon the record upon which
it could arise, when the counsel on either side never dreamt that
it was in issue, when there was no argument on it, and foreclose the
right of self-government to thousands and hundreds of thousands of
people without a hearing. But one word more: I assert, and the
debates will prove, that the understanding of the Kansas-Nebra
13
191 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
Bill was that this was a judicial question to be decided when it
should arise on a Territorial enactment.
The speech of the senator from Va. (r. Hunter), shows clearly
that it was to arise on a Territorial enactment, and all the speeches
ot.ll of us show that it was in that way and at that time that this
judicial question was expected to arise and be decided. The understanding was that when a Territorial legislature passed an act on
this subject, of which any man complained, he should be able -to
bring the matter before the Supreme Court; and to facilitate the
court in getting jurisdiction, we amended the bill by putting in a
clause providing that a case affecting the title to slaves might be
taken up to the Supreme Court without reference to the amount involved.  That clause was inserted in order to get this judicial question before the Supreme Court of the United States. How? On a
Territorial enactment, and nobody ever dreamt that the court was
going in a decision on a case which did not affect that question to
decide this point without argument and without notice, and.preclude
the rights of the people without allowing them to be heard. Whenevel
a Territorial legislature shall pass an act divesting or attempting toQ
divest or impair or prejudice the right to slave property, and a case
under that act shall be brought before the Supreme Court, I will
abide by the decision and help in good faith to carry it out.
Mr. Clay, of Alabama, was the next to assail Mr. Douglas
and to impeach the soundness of his principles and the consistenecy of his course upon the slavery question. In reply
to him, Mr. Douglas said:
I say to the gentleman from Alabama, that while I have sought no
sympathy and desire no sympathy, I shrink from no vindication of
myself. I leave the public to judge whether there has not been
rather a doubling of teams on me every time I have engaged in
debate for the last two years.  After fighting an unholy alliance in
my own State, between federal officeholders and abolitionists, and
triumphing over them, did I come here at the last session and make
any parade of that'act? No, sir, I -remained silent. I made nc
vindication of myself; I made no complaint of my removal fiomu the
chair of the Territorial Comramittee; I never alluded to it, and the
matter would never have passed my lips if it had not been thrust ip
192 
STEPIE.N A. DOUGLAS. #
i-sy face in debate in the Senate to-day.  The discussion of last year
was broulglt on by others and not by me, and yet we have been told
by a senator (Mr. Gwin) while making a speech in the country, tlhat
those who removed me finom the head of that committee expected me
to defend iiyselt, and conmplained that I waited until the endI of the
session, after I had been tried, condemned and executed in mny absence. Sir, I l!ad no defence to make.  I scorn to make any defence.
stood conscious of the rectitude of my own motives and the correctness of my own actions. I claimed the riglht to holdiand vindicate
my own opinions, and to irnpl)eaclh no other man's conduct or the
integrity of liis purpose.  I yield to every senator the right of differing fromn me, and I never make a test on himn for doing so.
*       *      *       *        *       *       *       *
I have but a word more to say now, and that is on another point.
The senator fiom Alabatla tells me that.if hlie had nriot supposed that
I had clhanged my opinions, he would never have extended to me the
right hand of fellowship as a Democrat.  Well, sir, I do not know
float my Democracy would lhave suffered much if he never had.  I
am willing to compare records with him as a Democrat. I never
make speeches, proclaiming to the world that if I cannot get my
man nominated I will bolt the convention and break up tile Democratic party, and then talk about the right hand of Demnocrat.
fellowshlip. Sir, that senator has placed himself beyond the pale of
Democratic fellowship, by the pronunciamento that he will not abide
the decision of the National Convention, if the speeches, which I see
attributed to him in the newspapers, are true. I do not understand
this thing of belonging to an organization, going into a convention
and abiding by the result if you win and bolting if you lose. I never
thought that it was deemed fair dealing in any profession. If you
take the winnings when you gain, I always thought you had to pay
your bets when you lost: a man who tells me and the world that he
only goes into a convention to abide the result in the event of its
deciding in his favor, has no right to talk about extending the hand
of Democratic fellowship. Now, sir, I have the kindest feelings
toward the gentleman personally.   He has a right to differ from
me; he has a right to bolt the Charleston Convention; he has a right
to proclaim to the world beforehand that he means to do so; but he
has no right to go into the convention unless he intends to abide the
198 
194    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
ret;ult.  He has no right to claim that he belongs to the conventions
and say that he will bolt the nominee; and hence I say to that
senator, with all kindness, that if he does not extend to me the right
hand of Democratic fellowshlip I shall survive the stroke.  If 1 should
happen to be the nominee of the Cl-arleston Convention, and lhe
should vote against me, I am not certain that it would diminish my
majority in his own State.  I am not counting his support.  Permit
me to say to that senator that it will be time enough to threaten that
he will not vote for me when I ask him to do it.  Permit me to say
further to him that I am doing quite as much honor to him if I consent to accept his vote, as he will do me by conferring it.
*       *       *       *       *       *       *       *
When threats are made of not extending the hand of Demnocratie
fellowship, I slhould like to understand who it is that has the right to
say who is in the party and who not. I believe that more than twothirds of the Democracy of the United States are with me on this
disputed point. James Buchanan received about eighteen hundred
thousand votes at the last election, more than twelve hundred
thousand of them in the free States, and something over six hundred
tliousand in the slaveholding States, and you have beard it said by
the senator from Ohio-to-day, and I believe it, that ninety-nine out
of every one hundred Democrats in the northern States agreed with
him and me on this question.  Then one-tlhird of the Democratic
party are going to read out the remaining two-thirds. Your cand'date
will have a good chance of election if you shall have done it, will lie
not 
The only importance attached to the question of the chairmanship
of the Committee on Territories is this: heretofore no test has been
made as l;o a man's opinions on this judicial question, and hence ]
could hold the position of chairman by a unanimous vote, without
objection; but now it is made a test. I do not make it-I only resist
your test if you make it on me. While I do not want the chairmanship-while I have performed labor enough on that committee, for
eleven and a half years, to be anxious to get rid of it-yet the country cannot fail to take notice that my removal at the end of eleven
years, is significant in one of two points of view. It was either personal or political. I acquit every man of the suspicion that it was
personal.   Then it must have been political.   What does it signify
It is a proclamation to the Senate that a man ho) a'ng tLe opinions I 
S TEP H EN A. D OU LAS.
to is not sound enough to serve as chairman of a committee.  Is he
sound enough for a cabinet officer, for a district attorney, for a collector of the port, for a post-master, for a lighthouse-keeper? All these
classes of officers are now being removed, except cabinet officers, for
holding the same opinions as myself. If you were to nominate for
the Presidency a man who intends to pursue this proscriptive policy
that every man holding the opinions I do is marked as a victim for
vengeance the moment your candidates are elected, what chance have
you of electing them?"
After a colloquy between Mr. Davis and Mr. Douglas, the
latter proceeded:
"I seek no war with any senator on either side of the chamber,
and especially I seek none on political issues with Democratic senators. Every word I have said has been in defence of myself against
the imputation that I had changed my line of policy, which I utterly
deny.  I did understand, and I understand now, that when applications are made to the present Administration for office, the question
of a man's opinion on popular sovereignty is asked, and the applicant
is proscribed if he agree with me in opinion. The country understands therefore that if a man representing this proscriptive policy
is the next President, every man in the country who holds the
opinions of the senator from Ohio and myself is to be proscribed
from every office, high or low. Such is now the case. Is any gentleman prepared to take the Charleston nomination with the undeistanding that he is to proscribe two-thirds of the party, and then
degrade himself so low as to seek the votes of the men whom he has
marked as his victims?  If no tests are to be made, there can be
harmony; if these tests are to be made, one-third will not subdune
two3-thirds. I do not intend to surrender an opinion or to trt and
force one upon any other senator or citizen. I arraign n) man
because of his opinions."
195 
1.6    THE LIFE AND fPFEECHES8 OF
INCIDENTS OF THE GEEAT SPEECH.
On Monday, the 23d of January, the resolution submitted
on the 16th instant having been made the special order for
that day, Mr. Douglas addressed the Senate in its support.,
It was known in Washington for some time previously that
he would Speak on that day, and this fect drew to the Capitol
an immnense concourse of people. It would seem that the
mantles of Clay and Webster had fallon upon the shoulders
of Douglas, for it is well known that for years was it simplye
necessary to say "Douglas speaks to-day," in order to have
the Senate chamber thronged by all the wit and beauty in
the capital. On this occasion, although it was known that
Mr. Douglas would not begin to speak till nearly two in the
afternoon, yet as early as ten in the morning, numerous groups
of people were seen wending their way to the Capitol. At
eleven, the galleries were full, and the tide of silk and satin,
cambric and crinoline, continued to gather in the avenues and
lobbies. Crowds of ladies and gentlemen continued to pour
in, till at noon every seat in the immense chamber was occu
pied, and all the standing-place jammed. The members of
the House of Representatives came in almost in a body, and
occupied the floor. The foreign diplomatic corps too, were
present in full force. Never'before had there been such a
scene in the new chamber.
Douglas was to speak-not for Illinois, not for the West,
but for the pacification of the whole country, and the perpe.
tuity of the Union.
The reader will comprehend the character of this speech
from the subjoined extracts: 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
INVASION OF STATES.
The hear having arrived for the consideration of the special order,
the Senate proceeded to consider the following resolution, submitted
by Mr. Douglas on the 16th instant:
"Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciarybe instructed to report a biF
for the protection of each State and Territory of the Union against invasion
by the authorities or inhabitants of any other State or Territory; and for tht
suppression and punishment of conspiracies or combination in any State oe
Territory with intent to invade, assail, or molest the gov ernment, inhabit
ants, property, or institutions of any other State or Territor y of the Union.'
MR. DOUOLAS.-Mr. President, on the 25th of November last, the
governor of Virginia addressed an official communication to the
President of the United States, in which he said:
"I have information from various quarters, upon which I rely, that a conspiracy of formidable extent, in means and numbers, is formed in Ghio, Pennsylvania, New York, and other States, to rescue John Brown and his associates, prisoners at Charlestown, Virginia. The information is specific enough
to be reliable..
"Places in Maryland, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, have been occupied as depots
and rendezvous by these desperadoes, unobstructed by guards or otherwise,
to invade this State, and we are kept in continual apprehension of outrage
from fire and rapine. I apprise you of these facts in order that you may take
steps to preserve peace between the States."
To this communication the President of the United States, on the
28th of November, returned a reply, from which I read the following sentence:
"I am at a loss to discover any provision in the Constitution or laws of the
United States which would authorize me to'take steps' for this purpose.'
[That is, to preserve the peace between the States.]
This announcement produced a profound impression upon A
public mind, especially in the slaveholding States. It was generally
received and regarded as an official and authoritative announcement
that the Constitution of the United States confers no power upon
the Federal Government to protect the several States of this Union
against invasion from the other States. I shall not stop to inquire
whether the President meant to declare that the existing laws confer
no authority upon him, or that the Constitution empowers Congress
to enact no laws which would authorize the federal interposition to
protect the States from invasion; my object is to raise the inquiry,
and to ask the judgment of the Senate and of the House of Representatives on the question, whether it is not within the power of
Congress, and the duty of Congress, under the Constitution, to en
at all laws which are necessary and proper for the protection of
197 
198    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
each and every State against invasion, either from foreign powers or
from any portion of the United States.
*         *         *          *         *         *
Sir, what were the causes which produced the Hlarper's Ferry
outrage?  Without stopping to adduce evidence in detail, I have no
hesitation in expressing my firm and deliberate conviction that the
Harper's Ferry crime was the natural, logical, inevitable result of
the doctrines and teachings of the Republican party, as explained
and enforced in their platform, their partisan presses, their
pamphlets and books, and especially in the speeches of their leaders
in and out of Congress. (Applause in the galleries.)
Order being restored, Mr. Douglas proceeded:
I was remarking that I considered this outrage at Harper's Ferry
as the logical, natural consequence of the teachings and doctrines of
the Republican party. I am not making this statement for the purpose of crimination or partisan effect. I desire to call the attention
of members of that party to a reconsideration of the doctrines that
t+JIey are in the habit of enforcing, with a view to a fair judgment
whether they do not lead directly to those consequences on the part
of those deluded persons who think that all they say is meant in real
earnest, and ought to be carried out. The great principle that underlies the organization of the Republican party is violent, irreconcilable, eternal warfare upon the institution of American slavery,
with the view of its ultimate extinction throughout the land; sectional war is to be waged until the cotton fields of the South shall
be cultivated by free labor, or the rye fields of New York and
Massachusetts shall be cultivated by slave labor. In furtherance of
this article of their creed, you find their political organization not
only sectional in its location, but one whose vitality consists in appeals to northern passion, northern  prejudice, northern  ambition
against southern States, southern institutions, and southern people.
Can any man say to us that although this outrage has been perpe
trated at Harper's Ferry, there is no danger of its recurrence? Sir,
is not the Republican party still embodied, organized, sanguine, confident of success, and defiant in its pretensions?  Does it not now
lhold and proclaim the same creed that it did before this invasion I
It is true that most of its representatives here disavow the acts of
Jolin Brown at Harper's Ferry.  I am glad that they do so; I am
rejoiced that they have gone thus far; but I must be permitted to
say to them that it is not sufficient that they disavow the act, unless
they also repudiate and denounce the doctrines and teachings which
produced the act. Those doctrines remain the same; those teachings
are being poured into the minds of men throughout the country, by
means of speeches, and pamiphlets and books, and tlirougi partisan
presses.  The causes that produced the Harptr's Ferry invasion ire 
STEPHEN  A. DO U G LAS.
now ia active operation.  Is it true that the people of all the border
States are required by the Constitution to have their hands tied,
without the power of self-defence, and remnain patient under a threatened invasion in the day or in the night' Can you expect people to
be patient, when they dare not lie down to sleep at night without
first stationing sentinels around their houses to see if a band of marauders and murderers are not approaching with torlch and pistol I
Sir, it requires more patience than fieemen ever shlould cultivate, to
suonuit to constant annoyance, irritation and  apprelhension.  If we
expect to preserve this Union, we must remedy, within the Union,
and in obedience to the Constitution, every evil for wlhich disunion
woold furnish a remedy.
Upon the conclusion of this speech Mr. Fessenden attempted to break its force by a violent partisan attack on
MIr. Douglas and the Democratic party; to which Mr. Douglas instantly replied, repelling the assaults and vindicating
the position of the Democratic party upon the slavery question. We invite attention to extracts:
MR. DOUGLAS' REPLY.
Siv, I desire a law that will make it a crime, punishable by imprisolnment in the penitentiary, after conviction in the United States
court, to make a conspiracy in one State, against the people, property,
government, or institutions of another.  Then we shall get at the
root of the evil.  I have no doubt that gentlemen on the other side
will vote for a law which pretends to comply with the guarantees of
the Constitution, without carrying any force or efficiency in its provisions.  I have-heard men abuse the Fugitive Slave Law, and express
tlheir willingness to vote for amendments; but when you came to the
amendments which they desired to adopt, you found they were such
as would never return a fugitive to his master.  They would go for
any fugitive slave law that had a hole in it big enough to let the negro drop through and escape; but none that would comply with the
obligations of the Constitution. So we shall find that side of the
house voting for a law that will, in terms, disapprove of unlawful
expeditions against neighboring States, without being efficient in
affording protection.
But the senator says it is a part of the policy of the northern
Democracy to represent the Republicans as being hostile to southern
institutions. Sir, it is a part of the policy of- the northern Democracy, as well as their duty, to speak the truth on that subject. i did
not suppose that any man would have the audacity to arraign a brother senator here for representing the Republican party as dingw   i 
,)00 0 THE LIFE AND SPEEaUES OF
lenunciatlon and insult of the institutions of flie South.  look  to
your Philadelphiia platform, where you assert the sovereign power of
Congress over the Territories for their governmnent, and demand that
it stlill be exerted against those twin relics of barbarism-polyganmy
and slavery.
* *         *       *       *       *       *      *    *
I have said and repeat that this question of slavery is one of
climate, of political economy, of self-interest, not.a question of legis lation. Wherever the climate, the soil, the health of the country
are such that it cannot be cultivated by white labor, you will have
African labor, and compulsory labor at that. Wherever white labor
can be employed cheapest and most profitably, there African labor
will retire and white labor will take its place.
You cannot force slavery by all the acts of Congress you may
make on one inch of territory against the will of the people, and
you cannot, by any law you. can make, keep it out from one inch of
American territory where the people want it. You tried it in
Illinois. By the Ordinance of 1787, slavery was prohibited, and yet
our people, believing that slavery would be profitable to them, established hereditary servitude in the Territory by Territorial legislation,
in defiance of your federal ordinance. We maintained slavery there
just so long as Congress said we should not have it, and we abolished
it at just the moment you recognized us as a State, with the right to
do as we pleased. When we established it, it was on the sulposition that it was for our interest to do so.
*       *       *,*        *       *        *      *        *
My object is to establish firinly the doctrine that each State is to
d(lo its own voting, establish its own institutions, make its own laws
without interference, directly or indirectly, from any outside p(,wer.
The gentleman says that is squatter sovereignty. Call it squ ttter
sovereignty, call it popular sovereignty, call it what you please it is
the great principle of self-government on which this Union was
formed, and by the preservation of which alone can it be maintained.
It is the right of the people of every State to govern themselves. and
make their own laws, and be protected from outside violence or i, lterference, directly or indirectly. Sir, I confess the object of the le~ islation I contemplate is to put down this outside interference; it Is to
repress this "irrepressible conflict;" it is to bring the government
back to the true principles of the Constitution, and let each people in
this Union rest secure in the enjoyment of domestic tianquillity without apprehension from neighboring States. I will not occupy
further time.
REPLY TO SENATOR DAVIS.
On the 26th of Jannary, Mr. Douglas made the following
remarks, in his reply to Gen. Jeff. Davis, senator from
Mississippi. 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
UR. DO.IJGLAS.-T think if the senator from  Missis.,ilppi lhad care.
fully read my speech, he wouldi have found no necessity for vin(licat.
ilg the President of the United States from any criticisn that I had
made upon his letter, or from any issue that I lhad lmade with the
Itresidetit growing out of that letter.  Certainly, in my speech, there
is no criticism upon the President, none up(n liis letter,- no issue
mnade with him; on the contrary, an exiress disclaialiei of aliy such
issue.  I quoted the paragraph fromn the Presideltit's letter in reply
to Gov. Wise, and I will quote it again:
" I all at a h,ss to discover any provision in the Constitution or
laws of the United States which would autliorize me to take steps f)r
this puri)ose."  [That is, preserving the peace betweei the States.]
My imp'ession, from reading the President's letter, was that lie
was inclined to the belief that tile Constitution conferred no power
upon the Federal Governinent to interfere.  But still, it mighlt be
'that such was not tile President's meaning, and tihat lie only wished
to be undeostood ias saying that existing laws conferred no authority
upon hlim to interfere. Hence, in order to make no issue witlh the
President upon tllat subject, I stated, I shall not stop to inquire whethler lie meant to be understood as denying the power of Congress to
confer authority, or denying that the authority was yet conferred.
My simpl)le object was to obtain suitable legislation to redress similar
evils in tiJe future; that if the present laws were not sufficient-I
believe there are none o(in the slubject-Corgress ought to enact suitable laws, to the extent that the Constitution authojized, to prevent
these invasions.  I quoted it for the purpose of sliowing the niecessity
of legislation by Congress.  My argument was founded upon that
supposed necessity.  I proceeded to de4nonstrate that the Constitlution conferred thle power oil Congress to pass laws necessary and proper to protect the States, and I called upon Congress to exercise that
power. I made no issue with the President.
But the senator intimnates that the legislation of whlich I spoke
would lead to an act of usurpation that would endanger the rights of
the States, and yet goes on t,, prove that the President of the United
States does not differ with nme in regard to that constitutional power.
If the President agrees with me on that point, I am glad of it.  If lie
differs with me it would not change may opinions tior my action, but
I respectfully submit, when I only propose sucht legislation as tlhe
Constitution authorizes an(l requires, it is hlardlv fair to say that that
means an attack upon the sovereignty of the St,ites.
The legislation that I propose on this point of comnbinations, was
this: that it shall be lawful for the grand juries of the United States
courts to indlict all men who shall form conspiracies or combinations
to invade a State or to disturb or molest citizens, property. or insti tutions; and that it shall be proper for the petit jury in the United
States courts, under the judge, to try and convict the colspirators,
and to punish them by confinement in the penitentiaries or prisons
within the respective States where the conspiracies or coinbinations
are formed.   That was the power that I proposed should be cow
201' 
202    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
ferred by law on the federal courts.  I never proposed to illt'ust to the
President an army to go and seek out conspiracies, to seek out corns,
binations, and to punish them by military rule. My wh(ole argument
was that the federal courts should hlave jurisdiction over these conspiracies and combinations; that the conspirators should be indicted,
and convicted according to law, and punished to the extent of their
power.  Bult in case of an organized body of uen, or a irilitarv force
in the act of invading, I would confer authority to use military force
to the extent necessary to prevent that-not the cons,piriacy.
The senator says he has got that power  now.  The President of
the United States, I apprehend, thought not, for this reason: Ile said
the only power hle had got was the authority coiferred  by th-e two
acts to which he alluded, to wit: to protect the United States against
invasi(on fromn foreign powers and Indian tribes; and lie stated that
the invasion of one State from another State did not collie withiii the
specifications of the statute fr pr,)tectiig the United Si'.tes agaillst
foreign powers and Indian tribes   If the senattii tliulks tlia that
power is thlere, when we get the legislation before us it will be proper to iiiake alnendments which will reach each  objtction lie iiitay
raise.   The two  propositions I maintained in liiy argulent, and
those provided for in iy resolution, were these: first to protect each
State against inivasion-thle case of actual invasion being then in process (of execution   second. to make it, criminal to tforii consliracies
and combinations in any State oir Territory, or any place within the
United States, ag,,i!ist the institutions, I)roperty or governuent of
any other State or Territory of this Union. J Those were the propositions.
REPLY TO SENATOR SEWARD.
On the 29th of Februairyi Mr. Seward made his great speech
on the occason of his presenting the Wyandott Constitution
of Kansas. It was a speech of much ability, and no doubt,
when he had concluded, Mr. Seward imagined that he had
dealt a death-blow to the Democratic party. Mr. Douglas
immediately replied to Mr. Seward, taking up seriatim the
points of his speech, and scattering his sophistries to the
winds.  By general confession  Mr.  Douglas  never  ap.peared to better advantage on the floor of the Senate thai in
this triumphant exteempore reply to Mr.- Seward.  In the laniguage of the correspondent of the "Cleveland Plaindealer,"
" He decapitated the mighty Philistine with his own sword 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
The beautifuil.,structure which had cost Mr. Sew ard sD mnuch
time, labor, and travel, was in one brief hour scattered in
tragmnents at the feet of the Little Giant."
The reader will find the reply of Mr. Douglas in a subse
quent part of this work, from which we give brief extracts:
EXTRAOTS FROM REPLY.
MR. PRESIDENT: I trust I shall be pardoned for a few remarks upon
so much of the senator's speech as consists in an assault on the Democratic party, and especially with regard to the Kansas-Nebraska
bill, of which I was the responsible author.  It has become fashionable now-a-days for each gentleman making a speech against the Democratic party to refer to the Kansas-Nebraska act as a cause of all
the disturbances that have since ensued. They talk about the repeal
of a sacred compact that had been undisturbed for more than a quarter of a century, as if those who complained of violated faith had
been faithful to the provisions of the Missouri Comp)rorrmise. Sir,
wherein consisted the necessity for the repeal or abrogation of that
act, except it was that the majority in the northern States refused
to carry out the Missouri Compromise in good faith? I stood willing
to extend it to the Pacific Ocean, and abide by it forever, and the
entire South, without one exception in this body, was willing that
to abide by it; but the freesoil element of the northern States was
so str,3ng as to defeat that measure, and thus open the slavery question anew. The men who now complain of the abrogation of that
act were the very men who denounced it, and denounced all of us
who were willing to abide by it so long as it stood upon the statutebook' Sir, it was the defeat, in the House of Representatives, of the
enactment of the bill to extend the Missouri Compromise to the
Pacific Ocean, after it had passed the Senate on my own motion, that
opened the controversy of 1850, which was terminated by the adop tion of the measures of that year.
We carried those Compromise measures over the head (,f thle sena
tor of New York and his present associates. We, in those measures
established a great principle, rebuking his doctrine of intervention
by the Congress of the United States to prohibit slavery in the Ter ritories. Both parties, in 1852, pledged themselves to abide by that
principle and thus stood pledged not to prohibit slavery in the Ter ritories by. act of Congress. The Whig party affirmed that pledge,
and so did the Democracy. In 1854 we only carried out, in the
Kansas-Nebraska Act, the same principle that had been affirmed in
the Compromise measures of 1850. I repeat that their resistance to
carrying out in good faith the settlement of 1820, their defeat of the
bill for extending it to the Pacific Ocean, was the sole cause of the
agitation of 1850, and gave rise to the necessity of establishing the
203 
204    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the Terll
tories..
But, sir, the whole argument of that senator goes far beyond the
question of slavery, even in the Territories. His entire argument
rests on the assumption that the negro and the white man were equal
by Divine law, and hence that all laws and constitutions and govern meiints in violation of the principle of negro equality are in violation
"of the law of God. That is the basis upon which his speech rests.
Hlie quotes the Declaration of Indel)endenlce to show that thle fatlhers
of the Revolution understood that the negro was placed on an equality
with the white mnan, by quoting the clause. " we hold these truths to
be self-evident that, all men are created equal, and  are  endowed
by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, anmoiig which are
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  Sir, the doctrine of that
senator and of his party is-an(l I have had to meet it for eight
years-that the Declaration of Independence intended to recognize
the negro and the white man  as equal under the Divitie law, and
hence that all the provisions of thie Constitution of the United States
which recognize slavery are in violation of the Divine law.  In other
words, it is an argument against the Constitution of the UI)ited
States upon thle ground that it is coritrary to the law of God(.   The
senator from New York lhas long held that doctrine.   Thle senator
fromn New York has often proclaimed to the world that the Constitution of the United States was in violation of the Divine law, and
that senator will not contra(lict the statement. I liave an extract
from one of hlis speeches now before me, in which that proposition is
distinctly put fortl-h. In a speech made in the State of Ohio, in 1848,
he said:
" Slavery is the sin of not some of the States only, but of them all; ot net
one nationality, but of all nations. It perverted and corrupted the moral sense
of mankind deeply and universally, and this perversion became a universal
habit.  Habits of thought become fixed principles.  No American State has
yet deiivered itself entirely from these habits.  We, in New York, are guilty
of slavery still by withholding the right of suffrage from the race we have
emancipated.  You, in Ohio, are guilty in the same way by a system of black
laws still more aristocratic and odious.  It is written in the Constitution of the
United States that five slaves shall count equal to three freemen as a basis of
representation; and it is written, also, IN VIOLATION OF DIVINE LAW,
thae* e shall surrender the fugitive slave who takes refuge at our fresides from
Iw  *ientless pursuer." 
ITBPHBN  A. DOUGLAS.
CHAPTER XVII.
THE STATE CONVENTIONS.
Conventions of Illinois, Indiana. Ohio, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and
Michigan; also of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and
New York-Claims of the North-west-Conclusion.
CONVENTIONS IN THE NORTHWEST.
THE northwestern States began to hold their State Conven.
tions, and to elect delegates to the National Democratic Convention at Charleston, early in 1860
Illinois was first in the field. She held her Convention at
Springfield, on the 4th of January, 1860, and unanimiously
adopted, among others, the following resolutions:
Resolved, That the Democracy of Illinois do reassert and affirm
the Cincinnati platform, in the words, spirit and meaning with which
the samne was adopted, understood and ratified by the people in 1856,
and do reject and utterly repudiate all such new issues and tests as
the revival of the African slave-trade, or a congressional slave code
for the Territories, or the doctrine that slavery is a federal institution, deriving its validity in tlie several States and Territories in
which it exists from the Constitution of the United States, instead
of being a mere municipal institution, existing in such States and
Territories "under the laws thereof."
Resolved, That the Democratic party of the Union is pledged in
faith and honor, by the Cincinnati Platform and its indorsement of
the Kansas-Nebraska Act, to the following propositions:
1. That all questions pertaining to African slavery in the Tern
tories shall be forever banished from the halls of Congress.
2. That the people of the Territories respectively shall be left perfeetly free to make such laws and regulations in respect to slavery
And all other matters of local concern as they may determine for
themselves, subject to no other limitations or restrictions than those
imposed by the Constitution of the United States.
205 
2~0    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
3. That-all questions affecting the validity or constitutionality of
any Territorial enactments shall be referred for final decision to t)he
Supreme Court of the United States, as the only tribunal provided
by the Constitutioni which is competent to determine them.
.6Rsol7ed, Thltt wo recognize the paramount judicial authority of
the Supreme Court of the United States, as provided in the Constitution, and hold it to be the imperative duty of all good citizens to
respect'and obey the decisions of that tribunal, and to aid, by all
lawful means, in c,rrying them into faithful execution.
.Resolved, That the Democracy of Illinois repel with just indignation the injurious and unfounded imputation upon the integrity and
impartiality of the Supreme Court, which is contained in the assump,tion on the part of the so-called Republicans, that, in the Dred
Scott case, that august tribunal decided against the right of the people of the Territories to decide the slavery question for themselves,
without giving them an opportunity of being heard by counsel in
defence of their rights of self-governmont, and when there was no
Territorial law, enactment or fact before the court upon which that
question could possibly arise.
Resolved, That whenever Congress or the legislature of any State
or Territory shall make any enactment, or do any act which attempts
to divest, impair or prejudice any right which the owner of slaves,
or any other species of property, may have or claim in any Territory
or elsewhere, by virtue of the Constitution or otherwise, and the
party aggrieved shall bring his case before the Supreme Court of the
United States, the Democracy of Illinois, as in duty bound by their
obligations of fidelity to the Constitution, will cheerfully and faithfully respect and abide by the decision, and use all lawful means to
aid in giving it full effect according to its true intent and meaning.
Resolved, That the Democracy of Illinois view with inexpressible
horror and ind,ignation the murderous and treasonable conspiracy of
John Brown and his confederates to incite a servile insurrection in
the slaveholding States, and heartily rejoice that the attempt was
promptly suppressed, and the majesty of the law vindicated, by
inflicting upon the conspirators, after a fair and impartial trial,
that just punishment which the enormity of their crimes so richly
merited
Resolved, That the Harper's Ferry outrage was the natural consequience and and logical result of the doctrines and teachings of the
Republican party, as explained and enforced in their platforms, partisan presses, books and pamphlets, and in the speeches of their
leaders, in and out of Congress, and for this reason an honest and
law-abiding people should not be satisfied with the disavowal or disapproval by the Republican leaders of John Brown's acts, unless they
also repudiate the doctrines and teachings which produced those
monstrous crimes, and denounce all persons who profess to sympathize with murderers and traitors, lamenting their fate and venerating
their memory as martyrs who lost their lives in a just and holy cause.
Rasoee(d, That the delegates representing Illinois in the Charleston 
STEPItEN A. DOUGLAS.
Convention be instruceted to vote for and use all honorable means to
secure the readoption of the Cincinnati platform, without any additions or subtractions.
Resolved, That no honorable man can accept a seat as a delegate in
.he National Democratic Corvention, or should be recognized as a
member of the Democratic party, who will not abide the.decisions
of such convention and support its nominees.
Resolved, That we affirm and repeat the principles set forth in the
resolutions of the last State Convention of the Illinois Democracy,
held in this city on the 21st day of April, 1858, and will not hesitate
to apply those principles wherever a proper case may arise.
Resolved, That the Democracy of the State of Illinois is unaninously in favor of Stephen A. Douglas for tthe next Presidency, and
that the delegates from this State are instructed to vote for him, and
make every honorable effort to procure his nomination.
THE N'ORTHWEST FOR DOUGLAS.
The convention then elected their 22 delegates; andi thiey
were all instructed to support Mr. Douglas for the nomination
at Charleston.
Indiana held her convention at Indianapolis on the 11th of
January, and passed resolutions nearly similar to the above
and quite as strong in favor of Mr. Douglas. The 26 dele'
gates to Charleston, from Indiana, were instructed by this
convention to cast the vote of the State of Indiana as a unit
for Mr. Douglas.
Ohio, had held her State Convention a few days before, and
it had been equtaly unanimous in favor of Mr. Douglas.
Ohio is entitled to 46 delegates to Charleston, all of whom
were instructed by the State Convention to cast the vote of
Ohio as a unit for Mr Douglas.
Minnesota, entitled to 8 delegates, instructed them to go
as a unit for Mr. Douglas.
Iowa held her State Convention at Fort Des Moines, on the
22d of February. It was the largest convention ever heM
in the State. - There were 518 delegates present, from all part
of the State.  The resolutions were adopted unanimously
among them were the following:
14
207 
2)03    THE LIFE AND SPEECHIES OF
8. Resolved, That we recognize in the HIon. Steplhen A. Douglas tlih
mthan for the times, able in council, ripe in experience, honest and firm
in purpose, and devotedly attached to the institutions of the country,
whose nomination as the Democratic standard-bearer for the President would confer honor alike on the party and the country, and is
a consummation devoutly to be wished; and that the delegates elected
by this convention be. and are hereby instructed to cast the vote of
the State of Iowa in the Charleston Convention as a unit tfor Stephen
A. Douglas so long as he is a candidate befoie that body, and to
use every other honorable means to secure his nomination for the
Presidency.
Another resolution cordially re-affirmed the principles of
the platform of the National Democratic Coinvention at Cincinnati in 1856.
Wisconsin held her State Convention on the same day.
The following resolutions were adopted by a vote of 165 aye
to 22 nays:
Re.solved. That the Democratic party of Wisconsin will cordially
support the nominee of the Charlestonii convention.  Resolved, That Stephen A. Douglas is the choice of the Democracy
of Wisconsin for President of the Un't.ed States-his eminent publie
services rendered the government  and the country-his  signal
triumphs in the Senate and before the people-his admitted abilityhis sound and just views of public policy-his devotion to the Constitution and the Union-render his name a tower of strength, and gives
assurance to the conviction that, if nominated at Charleston, he will
most certainly receive the electoral vote of Wisconsin. Therefore,
Resolved, That the entire delegation be instructed to vote for
Stephen A. Douglas.
Michigan also held her State Convention on the same day.
The convention was very full, every county in the State
being represented.
The  Corhmnittee on Resolutions reported a long series.
They einmphatically indorse the Cincinnati platform; recog.
nize the paramount judical authority in the Supreme Court of
the United States; express a fraternal reo,rd for the citizens
of every State, and denounce the invasion of Virginia as dangerous to the safety and prosperity of the country; appeal to
their brethren in other States to bury local prejudices, and
join Michigan in advocating the claims of the favorite of the
North-west; present Douglas as their unanimnous choice, and 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
instruct their delegates to use every honorable means to se.
cure his nomination.
The resolutions were unanimously adopted amid great
enthusiasm. Patriotic Union speeches were ma(lde.by the
State delegates, and all declared themselves uncompromising
Douglas men.  The name of Douglas was always received
with the heartiest applause.
Among the resolutions adopted, was the following:
That admiring his broad, national statesmanship, his loyalty to
true Democratic principles, his impartial defence of national rights
against sectional claims, and that heroic courage which-in behalf of the right- quails at no difficulty or disaster, and confident that under his matchless leadership the enthusiastic masses
can and will sweep the Northwest from centre to circumferenece,
the Democracy of Michigan present Stephen A. Douglas as their
UANIMOUS  choice for the Presidency, and  they hereby instruct
their delegates to the Charleton convention to  si,are no  honorable efforts to secure his nomination.
In thle aggregate, these seven States have one hundred and
thirty-two delegates at Charleston, and give sixty-six votes
for President. They cast over 600,000 Democratic votes,
a number equal to all the Democrats in the fifteen Southern
States. They give one-third of the Democratic vote of tlhe
Uiion, and contain more than one-quarter of the population
of the United States., By the census of the year 18t;',
they were entitled to over ninety members of Congress.
THE CLAIMIS OF THE NORTMI-WEST.
While all the sections of the Union had each had thei
Pi-esidents-indeed while every leading State in the East and
South had had one or more of her sons.honored with that
highi office-the great North-west, with its millions of people,
had never had the Chief Magistrate taken from her limits,
The case of General Harrison can scarcely be quoted to dis
209 
LIFE OP STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
prove this remark, as he held the office but one month, when
it reverted, by his death, to Virginia.
For the first time in their history, the unfaltering Democracy of the seven north-western States, hitherto always
divided in their choice, were united for Douglas, and, if
nominated at Charleston, it was the belief of nearly all the
intelligent men in that section he would carry every State
west of the Ohio River. They offered, as their favorite, confessedly the foremost statesman of the nation-one, thle unvarnished record of whose achievements put him on a towering pedestal and furnished a crushing answer to all the
calumnies of his enemies.   They offered a man whose private
escutcheon slander had never befouled with its breath, and
whose career had been characterized by a greater height of
moral grandeur than had ever been reached by anv statesman
of his day.
210 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
The ad ourned meeting of the DEMOCRATIC CONVEN
TION to Baltimore, on the 18th day of June, is a matter
of history. MR. DOUGLAS was niominated on the Second
Ballot, he having received 1801 votes out of 1941 cast,
when Mr. Church, of New York, offered thle following:
Resogted, That Stephen A. Douglas having received two-thirds of all the votes cast in
the National Democratic Convention, is, according to the rules of this Convention and the
usages of the Democratic party, declared nominated for the office of President of the
United States.
Messrs. iloge, of Virginia, and Clark, of Missouri, then simultaneousi!
seconded the resolution of Mr. Church declaring Judge Douglas nominated,
according to the usages of the Democratic party and the rules of the Convention, by a two-thirds vote.
The resolution was adopted unanimously.
A scene of excitement then ensued that evinced the violence of the
feeling so long pent up. The cheers were deafening, every person in the
theatre rising, waving hats, handkerchiefs, and evincing the utmost enthusiasm. The scene could not be exceeded in excitement. From the upper
tier, banners long kept in reserve were unfurled and waved before the
audience. On the stage appeared banners, one of which was borne by the
delegation from Pennsylvania, bearing the motto, "Pennsylvania good for
forty thousand majority for Douglas."  Cheers for the "Little Giant," were
responded to until all was in a perfect roar, inside the building and outside.
The Convention again rose en masse, and the scene of excitement wasn
renewed, cheer after cheer being sent forth for the nominee.
Mr. Richardson, of Illinois, then made a speech, thanking the Convention for the high honor conferred on his State il selecting for the candidate for the Presidency her favorite son.  Alluding -to the seceders, he sail
that if the Democratic party should be defeated and perpetually ruined,
they, the seceders, must bear the responsibility, not Douglas or his friends.
In this connection he produced a letter from Mr. Douglas, dated Washington, the 20th inst., authorizing and requesting his friends to withdraw
his name if, in their judgment, harmony could be restored in the Democratic ranks.  Mr. Richardson then said that the course of the seceders had
211 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
placed it out of the power of the friends of Mr. Douglas to make any use
of the letter. He c )ncluded by saying that when the Governrment fails to
accomplish the object for which it was formed, let it go down.
The following is the letter of Mr. Douglas:
WASHINGTON, Jim/C 20-11, P.M.
MY DEAR SIR: I learn there is imminent danger that the Democratic party will be demoralized, if not destroyed, by the breaking up of the Convention. Such a result would
inevitably expose the country to the perils of sectional strife between the Northern and
Southern partisans of Congressional intervention upon the subject of slavery in the Territories. I firmly and conscientiously believe that there is no safety for the country, nn hope
for the preservation o f the Union, except by a faithful and rigid adherence to the doctrine
of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the Territories. Intervention means disunion. There is no difference in principle between Northern and Southern intervention.
The one intervenes for slavery, and the other against slavery; but each appeals to the
passions and prejudices of his own section against the peace of the whole country and the
right of self-government by the people of the Territories. Hence the docrine of non-inter*ention must be maintained at all hazards.  But while I can never sacrifice the principle,
even to obtain the Presidency, I will cheerfully and joyfully sacrifice myself to maintain
the principle,
If, therefore, you and my other friends who have stood by me with such heroic firmness
at Charleston and Baltimore shall be of the opinion that the principle can be preserved,
and the unity and ascendency of the Democratic party maintained, and the country saved
from the perils of Northern Abolitionism and Southern disunion by withdrawing my Rame
and uniting with some other non intervention Union-loving Democrat, I beseech you to
pursue that course. Do not understand me as wishing to dictate to my friends; I have
implicit confidence in your and their patriotism, judgment, and discretion. Whatever
you may do in the premises will meet my hearty approvaL But I conjure you to act with
a single eye to the safety and welfare of the country, and without the slightest regard to
my individual interest or aggrandizement. My interest will be best promoted, and my
ambition gratified, and motives vindicated, by that course, on the part of my friends,
which will be most effectual in saving the country from being ruled or ruined by a sectional
party.  The action of the Charleston Convention, by sustaining me by so large a majority
on the platform, and designating me as the first choice of the party for the Presidency, l
all the personal triumph I desire. This letter is prompted by the same motives which
induced my dispatch four years ago, withdrawing my name from the Cincinnati Convention.
With this knowledge of my opinions and wishes, you and your other friends must act upon
your own convictions of duty.
Very truly, your friend,
S. A. DOUGLAS.
To HON. WM. A. RICHARDSON, Baltimore, Md.
THE PLATFORM ADOPTED.
In addition to and in explanation of the Cincinnati platform, the majority
of our late National Convention, diuring its sessions at Charleston and Baltimore, ad )pted the follor;ng resolutions:
212 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
Resolved, That we, the Democracy of the Union, in Convention assembled, do hereby
declare ou& affirmation of the resolutions unanimously adopted and declared as a platform
of principles by the Democratic Convention at Cincinnati, in the year 1856, believing that
Democratic principles are unchangeable in their natut e when applied to the same subjectm<atters.
Resolved, That it is the duty of the United States to afford ample and complete protection to all its citizens, whether at home or abroad, and whether native or foreign born.
Resolved, That one of the necessities of the age in a military, commercial and postal
point of view, is speedy communication between the Atlantic and- Pacific States, and the
Democratic party pledge such Constitutional power of the Government as will insure the
construction of a Railroad to the Pacific coast, at tfie earliest practicable period.
Resolved, That the Democratic party are in favor of the acquisition of Cuba on such
terms as shall be honorable to ourselves and just to Spain.
Resolved, That the enactments of State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of
the Fugitive Slave law, are hostile in character and subversive to the Constitution, and
revolutionary in their effects.
Re,olveed, That it is in accordance with the Cincinnati platform, that during the existence of Territorial Governments, the measure of restriction, whatever it may be, imposed
by the Federal Constitution on the power of the Territorial Legislature over the subject
of the domestic relations, as the same has been or shall hereafter be finally determined by
the Supreme Court of the United States, should be respected by all good citizens, and enforced with promptness and fidelity by every branch of the General Government.
On this platform, word for word, as printed above, the majority of our
late National Convention nominated the Hon. Stephen A. Douglas for
President of the United States.
MR. DOUGLAS' LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE.
WASHINGTON, FPday, Jo  29,1860.
GENTLEMEN: In accordance with the verbal assurance which I gave you
when you placed in my hands the authentic evidence of my nomination for
the Presidency by the National Convention of the Democratic party, I now
send you my formal acceptance.  Upon a careful examination of the platform of principles adopted at Charleston and reaffirmed at Baltimore, with
an additional resolution which is in perfect harmony with the others, I find
it to be a faithful embodiment of the time-honored principles of the Demo
cratic party, as the same were proclaimed and understood by all parties in
the Presidential contests of 1848, 1852, and 1856.
Upon looking into the proceedings of the Convention also, I find that
the nomination was made with great unanimity, in the presence and with
the concurrence of more than two-thirds of the whole number of delegates, and in accordance with the long-established usages of the party.
My inflexible purpose not to be a candidate, nor accept the nomination under any contingency, except as the regular nominee of the National Demo
213 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
eratic party, and in that case cnly upon the condition that th6 usages, U
well as the principles of the party, should be strictly adhered to, had been
proclaimed for a long time and become well known to the country.  These
conditions having all been complied with by the free and voluntary action
of tbo  Democratic masses and their faithful representatives, without any
ageicy, interference, or procurement, on my part, I feel bound in honor
and duty to accept the nomination. In taking this step, I am not unmindfial of the responsibilities it imposes, but with firm reliance upon Divine
Providence, I have the faith that the people will comprehend the true na
ture of the issues involved, and eventually maintain the right.
The peace of the country and the perpetuity of the Union have been
put in jeopardy by attempts to interfere with and to control the domestic
affairs of the people in the Territories, through the agency of the Federal
Government. If the power and the duty of Federal interference is to be
conceded, two hostile sectional parties must be the inev'table result-the
one inflaming the passions and ambitions of the North, the other of the
South, and each struggling to use the Federal power and authority for the
aggrandizement of its own section, at the expense of the equal rights of
the other, and in derogatio(n of those fundamental principles of self-goverilment which were firmly established in this country by the American Revol,tion, as the basis of our entire republican system.
During the memorable period of our political history, when the advocates of Federal intervention upon the subject of slavery in the Territories
had well-nigh "precipitated the country into revolution," the northern
interventionists demanding the Wilmot Proviso for the prohibition of
slavery, and the southern interventionists, then few in number, and without a single Representative in either House of Congress, insisting upon
Congressional legislation for the protection of slavery in opposition to the
wishes of the people in either case, it will be remembered that it required
all the wisdom, power and influence of a Clay and a Webster and a Cass,
supported by the conservative and patriotic men of the Whig and Democratic parties of that day, to devise and carry out a line of policy which
would restore peace to the country and stability to the Union. The essenii.
tial living principle of that policy, as applied ill the legislation of 1850,
was, and now is, non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the Territories. The fair application of this just and equitable principle restored
harmony and fraternity to a distracted country. If we now depart from
that wise and just policy which produced these happy results, and permit
the country to be again distracted; if precipitated into revolution by s
I
2.14 
STEPHEN A. DOUGL US.
ctlondl contest between Pro-Slavery and Anti-Slavery interventionists,
wMhere shall we look for another Clay, another Webster, or another Ca,
No pilot the ship of state over the breakers into a haven of peace and
safety,
The Federal Union must be preserved. The Constitution must be maintained inviolate in all its parts.   Every right guaranteed by the Constitution must be protected by law in all cases where legislation is necessary to
its engagement. The judicial authority as provided in the Constitution
must be sustained, and its decisions implicitly obeyed and faithfully executed.   The laws must be administered and the constituted authorities
upheld, and all unlawful resistance to these things must be put down with
firmness, impartiality and fidelity if we expect to enjoy and transmit
unimpaired to our posterity, that blessed inheritance which we have
received in trust from the patriots and sages of the Revolution.
With sincere $hanks for the kind and agreeable manner in which you
have made known to me the action of the Convention,
I have the honor to be,
Your friend and fellow citizen,
S. A. DOUGLAS.
kn. Wmn. H. Ludlow, of New York; B. P. Dick, of North Carolina; P. 0. WIek"   d
v, t dana, and others of Oommity 
215 
LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
CONCLUSION.
TiHE result of the Presidential Campaign  of  1860-in
which Mr. Douglas actively participated, although well
aware that the division in the Democratic party rendered his
own election an impossibility-is well known.   Mr. Douglas
received only the electoral vote of Missouri, and three
sevenths of the vote of New Jersey, though he received a
popular vote of 1,365,979; while John C. Breckenridge, with
a popular vote of but 847,953, secured the electoral vote of
all the  remaining  Southern  States-eleveri in numberexcept Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia, which voted for
John Bell.
Upon the outbreak of the great rebellion, Mr. Douglas,
like a true patriot, took his stand in behalf of the Government. His last public speech, indeed, was a noble declaration in favor of the Union, at any and all hazards.
Returning from Washington with his wife to Chicago, on
the first day of May, 1861-going home, though he knew it
not, to die-he was met at the depot by an immense assemblage of citizens of all parties, who insisted on escorting him
in procession to the great Wigwam, which was already
packed with ten thousand persons.
HIS LAST WORDS FOR THE UNION
Room having been made for the admission of Mr. Douglas,
he was addressed by Thomas B. Bryan, in behalf of Chicago
Mr. Douglas replied:
Mr. Chairman:-I thank you for the kind terms in which you have been
pleased to welcome me.  I thank the Committee and citizens of Chicago for
,Q6 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
this grand and imposing reception. I beg you to believe that I will not de
you nor myself the injustice to believe this magnificent ovation is personal
homage to myself. I rejoice to know that it expresses your devotion to the
Constitution, the Unioi, and the flag of our country.  (Cheers.)
I will not conceal gratification at the uncontrovertible test this vast audi
ence presents-that what political differences or party questions  may  have
divided us, yet you all had a conviction that when the country should be in
danger, my loyalty could be relied on. That the present danger is imminent,
no man can conceal.  If war must come-if the bayonet must be used to
maintain the Constitution-I can say before God my  conscience is clean.
I have struggled long for a peaceful solution of the difculty.  I have not
only tendered those States w hat was theirs of right, but I have gone to the
very extreme of magnanimity.
The return we receive is war, armies marched upon our capital, obstrue.
tions and dangers to our navigation, letters of marque to invite pirates to
prey upon our commerce, a concerted movement to blot out the United States
of America from the map of the globe. The question is, Are we to maintain
the country of our fathers, or allow it to be stricken down by those who,
when they can no longer govern, threaten to destroy?
What cause, what excuse do disunionists give us for breaking up the best
Government on which the sun of heaven ever shed its rays? They are
dissatisfied with the result of a Presidential election. Did they never get
beaten before? Are we to resort to the sword when we get defeated at the
ballot-box?  I understand it that the voice of the people expressed in the
mode appointed by the Constitution must command the obedience of every
citizen. They assume, on the election of a particular candidate, that their
rights are not safe in the Union. What evidence do they present of this?
I defy any man to show any act on which it is based. What act has been
omitted to be done? I appeal to these assembled thousands that so far as
the constitutional rights of the Southern States, I will say the constitutional
rights of slaveholders, are concerned, nothing has been done, and nothing
omitted, of which they can complain.
There has never been a time from the day that Washington was inalugurated first President of these United States, when the rights of the Southern
States stood firmer under the laws of the land than they do now'; there never
was a time when they had not as good a cause for disunion as they have to.
day.  What good cause have they now that has not existed under every
Administration?
If they say the Territorial question-now, for the first time, there is no
act of Congress prohibiting slavery anywhere. If it be the non-enforcement
of the laws, the only complaints that I have heard have been of the toe
vigorous and faithful fulfilment of the Fugitive Slave Law. Then what
reason have they?
217 
LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
The slavery question is a mere excuse.  The election of Lincoln is a mere
pretext. The present secession movement is the result of an enormous con.
spiracy formed more than a year since, formed by leaders in the Southern
Confederacy more than twelve months ago.
They use the Slavery question as a means to aid the accomplishment of
their ends.  They desired the election of a Northern candidate, by a sectional
vote, in order to show that the two sections cannot live together. When the
history of the two years from the Lecompton charter down to the Presiden tial election shall be written, it will be shown that the scheme was deliber ately made to break up this Union.
They desired a Northern Republican to be elected by a purely Northern
vote, and then assign this fact as a reason why the sections may not longer
live together. If the disunion candidate in the late Presidential contest
had carried the united South, their scheme was, the Northern candidate sue.
cessfuil, to seize the Capitol last spring, and by a united South and divided
North hold it. That scheme was defeated in the defeat of the disunion candidate in several of the Southern States.
But this is no time for a detail of causes. The conspiracy is now known.
Armies have been raised, war is levied to accomplish it. There are only two
sides to the question.  Every man must be for the United States or against
it.  There can be no neutrals in this war; only patriots-or traitors.
Thank God, Illinois is not divided on this question. (Cheers.) I know
they expected to present a united South against a divided North.  They
hoped, in the Northern States, party questions would bring civil war between
Democrats and Republicans, when the South would step in with her cohorts,
aid one party to conquer the other, and then make easy prey of the victors.
Their scheme was carnage and civil war in the North.
There is but one way to defeat this. In Illinois it is being so defeated by
closing up the ranks. War will thus be prevented on our own soil. While
there was a hope of peace I was ready for any reasonable sacrifice or compromise to maintain it. But when the question comes of war in the cottonfields of the South or the corn-fields of Illinois, I say the farther off the
better.
We cannot close our eyes to the sad and solemn fact that war does exist.
The Government must be maintained, its enemies overthrown, and the more
stupendous our preparations the less the bloodshed, and the shorter the
struggle. But we must remember certain restraints on our action even in
time of war. We are a Christian people, and the war must be prosecuted in
a manner recognized by Christian nations.
We must not invade Constitutional rights. The innocent must not suffer,
nor women and children be the victims. Savages must not be let loose. But
while I sanction no war on the rights of others, I will implore my country
21-9 
STEPHEN t. DOUGLAIA
men not to lay down their arms until our own rights are recognized.
(Cheers.)
The Constitution and its guarantees are our birthright, and I am ready to
enforce that inalienable right to the last extent. We cannot recognize secession. Recognize it once, and you have not only dissolved government, but
you have destroyed social order, upturned the foundations of society. You
have inaugurated anarchy in its worst form, and will shortly experience all
the horrors of the French Revolution.
Then we have a solemn duty-to maintain the Government.  The greater
our unanimity the speedier the day ofpeace.  We have prejudices to overcome
from the few short months since of a fierce party contest. Yet these must be
allayed.  Let us lay aside all criminations and recriminations as to the origin
of these difficulties. When we shall have again a country with the Unitel
States flag floating over it, and respected on every inch of American soil, it
will then be time enough to ask who and what brought all this upon us.
I have said more than I intended to say.  (Cries of "Go on.")  It is a sad
task to discuss questions so fearful as civil war; but sad as it is, bloody and
disastrous as I expect it will he, I express it as my conviction before God,
that it is the duty of every American citizen to rally round the fiag of his
coun try.
I thank you again for this magnificent demonstration. By it you show
you have laid aside party strife. Illinois has a proud position-united, firm,
determined never to permit the Government to be destroyed. (Prolonged
cheering.)
Not long afterward he was attacked with an acute disease,
of which he expired at ten minutes past nine o'clock in the
morning of the fourth of June, 1861, shortly after the completion of the forty-eighth year of his age.
The career of Mr. Douglas as a statesman, will ever form
a brilliant and familiar portion of our country's history. As
a public man, he was prompt, enterprising and persistent.
At the very outset of his legislative career, he identified his
name with two of the most popular and useful public works
in  Illinois, by  proposing as a member  of his legislature,  a
series of resolutions recommending their early construction.
The one, the Illinois and Michigan Canal, which opens up a
communication with the waters flowing into the Gulf of
Mexico, and those flowing into the Gulf of St. Lawrence,
The other; the Illinois Central Railroad, which furnishes an
21 D 
LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
overland connection between the upper Mississippi and Lake
Michigan, and the main  Mississippi at Cairo.   And afterwards he materially contributed to the completion of the
latter improvement, by his influence as a Senator of the
United States, in procuring the grant of land made by
Congress for that purpose. This was a proud triumph of
persevering statesmanship, and will long endure as a worthy
monument to his fame. Its priceless benefits are to-day
hailed by all Illinoisans as marking a new and joyous era in
the history of their beloved State.
As a debater, Mr. Douglas was great, truly great, in the
dexterous use of passing facts and familiar circumstances.
In this he was probably greater than any of his illustrious
contemporaries. This was the type of his mind-it was his
forte. Less eloquent than Clay, less logical than Webster,
less versatile than Bentop, he was the superior of them all in
the readiness of his intellect and the distinctness and clearness of his statements as a public speaker. He was always
unostentatious, copious, clear, and forcible.  As an extempore
speaker, his capabilities were transcendant and amazing, and
unquestionably placed him in the first rank of debaters of
any age and country.
As.an orator, his manner was peculiar to himself.  Although
possessing but little of the qualities of the rhetorician, and
still less of the art of the theatrical declaimer, yet his action
was far from ungraceful, while his voice was singularly full
and sonorous. What he lacked as a rhetorical declaimer, he
more than made up by the earnestness and vehemence of his
delivery. Like Demosthenes, whose style he appears to
have cultivated, he was always in earnest, ever on fire. His
power over his hearers was often demonstrated by his success
in swaying Senates and controlling the violence of the
populace.
In his social characteristics he was remarkable for thee
220 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
singular magnetism of his personal presence, the talismanic
touch of his kindly hand, the gentle amenities of his domestic
life, and the ineradicable clasp of his friendships.  These are
the pearls beneath the rough shells of his political life.
Many will recall the gentle tone and cordial greeting with
wvhich he used to woo and win, and hold the young partisans
of his faith, and the warm promoters of his success. Ever
ready with his counsel, his means, and his energies, he led
them as much by the persuasiveness of his heart, as the
logic of his head. The same gentle demeanor which fondled
his children and taught them a beauty of manners beyond all
praise, the same pure respect and tenderness with which he
treated his noble wife and companion, silvered the cords of
attachment which bound his friends to him, and made his
home at Washington and his sojourns elsewhere, recollections as sweet as memory can embalm.
Hlis devotion to the Union was strong even in death.
Could there be a more solemn, a more touching, a more
affecting scene, than when the angel of death was flapping
his broad wing over the emaciated frame of this intellectual
giant, when the grave was opening to receive him, and
when, in a moment of apparent consciousness, his lovely and
loving and devoted wife asked the dying statesman if he had
any message to send to his two sons?  When  not hearing,
or not understanding the question, she knelt over him and
whispered it once more in that ear so soon to be as deaf to
sound as the clod that covers him. Rallying for a nioment,
his eye flashing, his whole frame dilating,." Tell them," said
he, "TO OBEY THE LAWS AND SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES."P
His last utterance was the fit climax of a life devoted to
the study of this Government, and of a patriotism which
never swerved from its love for the IJUnion. It was worth
whole battalions of armed men. A word from him made
221 
LIFE AND SPEECHES.
calm from tempest, and resolved  doubt into duty.   His
thought swayed the tides of public opinion as vassals to his
will.  After his hot contests in the Senate during the first
session of the last Congress (1860-61), after his heroic
campaign in the South, closing at Norfolk in his courageous
reply to the disuinionists; after his struggles for the last fevw
months, when he strung his energies to the utmost in pleading for peace  and  conciliation; after all had failed, and
anarchy stalked with haughty head through the land, and
even jeopardized the metropolis of the nation, it was the
consummate glory of his life to have given his last and most
emphatic utterance for the maintainance of the Government,
even though its administration was given to his old political
antagonist, and  although  he knew  that  such expression
imperilled the lives of a hundred thousand of his friends.
Mav his countrymen ever remember his dying counsels,
an    d             so well   maintain the Constitution which he loved, that by
the re-union of the divided members of our Republic, they
who drew from his noble life so many political blessings, may
receive a great benefit even from his lamented and untimely
death.  B     ut be the issue what it may, his famle is forever
printed      in the hearts of the American people.  From  the
Green   Mountains of his native State to the white tops of the
Pacific Sierras, while the heavens bend above our land to
bless it, the rivers roll and the mountains stand to unite it,
or the ceaseless interchange of traffic and thought goes on by
sea an      d     rail by telegraph or post-the people of America,
from whose midst as a poor boy, by his own self-reliance he
sprung,   will preserve in the pantheon of their hearts, to an
inmmortal memory, the name of
STEPHEN ARNOLD DOUGLAS.
222 
SPEECHES AND REPORTS.
:$-.
ON THE MEASUREF OF APJUSTME-T.
Delivered in the Gity Hall, Ckicago, Illno:s, Oct. 23, 1850.
THE agitation on the subject of slavery now raging through the
breadth of the land presents a most extraordinary spectacle. Congress,
after a protracted session of nearly ten months, succeeded in passing
a system of measures, which are believed to be just to all parts of the
Republic, and ought to be satisfactory to the people. Thle South has'
not triumphed over the North, nor has the North achieved a victory
over the South. Neither party has made any humiliating conicessions
to the other. Each has preserved its honor, while neither has surrendered an important right, or sacrificed any substantial interest.
The measures composing the scheme of adjustment are believed to
be in harmony with the printciples of justice and the Constitution.
And yet we find thatthle agitation is re-opened in the two extremes
of the Union with renewed vigor and increased violence. In some
of the southern States, special sessions of the legislatures are being
called for the purpose of organizing systematic and( efficient measures
of resistance to the execution of the laws of the land, and for the
adoption of disunion as the remedy. In the northern States, municipal corporations, and other organized bodies of men, are nullifying
the acts of Congress, and raising the standard of rebellion against
the authority of the Federal Government.
At the South, the measures of adjustment are denounced as a disgraceful surrender of southern rights to northern ab(olitionism.
At the North, the same ineasutres are denounced with equal violence
as a total abandonment of the rights of freemen to conciliate the slave
power.
The southern disunionists repudiate the aIuthority of the highest
judicial tribunal on earth, upon the ground that it is a pliant and
corrupt instrument in the hands of northern fanaticism.
The northern nullifiers refuse to submnit the points at issue to the
same exalted tribunal, upon the ground that the Supreme Court of
the United States is a corrupt and supple instrument in the hands of
the southern slavocracy.
For these contradictory reasons the people in both sections of ths
15
i 
&    I HE LIFE AN D SPEECHES OF
Union are called upon to resist the laws of the lai-d, and the authority
of the Federal Government, by violence, even unto death and disunit)n.
Strange and contradictory positions!
Both cannot be true, and I trust in God neither may prove to be.
We have fallen on evil times, when passion and prejudice, and ambi tion, can so blind the judgments and d(leaden the consciences of men,
that the truth cannot be seen and felt. The people of the Nortli, or
the South, or both, are acting under a fatal delusion. Should we not
pause, and reflect, and consider, whether we, as well as they, have
not been egregiously deceived upon this subject?  It is my purpose
this evening to give a candid and impartial exposition of these mneasures, to the end that the truth may be known. It does not become
a free people to rush madly and blindly into violence, and bloodshed,
and death, and disunion, without first satisfying our consciences upon
whose souls the guilty consequences must rest.
The measures, known as the adjustment or compromise scheme,
are six in number:
1. Tile admission of California, with her free constitution.
2. Tlhe creatioiJ of a Territorial goverrnment for Utah, leaving the
people to regulate their own domestic institutions.
3. Thie creation of a Territorial government for New Mexico, with
like provisions.
4. The adjustment of the disputed boundary with Texas.
5. The abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columnbia.
6. The Fugitive Slave Bill.
The  first three of these measures-California, Utah. and New
Mexico-I prepared with mry own hands, and reported fromtn thle
Commnittee on Territories, as its chairman, in the precise shape in
which they now stand on the statute-book, with one ortwo utnitportant
amendmients, for which I also voted.  I, therefore, hold myself reponsible to you, as my constituents, for those measures as they passed.
If there is anything wrong in them, hold me accountable; if there is
anything of merit, give the credit to those who  passed the bills.
These measures are predicated on the great fundamental l')rinciple that
every people ought to possess the right of firmiing and regulating
their own initernal concerns and (domestic institutions inll their (own
way.  It wal  suppoused( that those of o)ur fellow-citizens who  emnigrated to the shores of the Pacific and to our other territories, were
as capable of self-t:government as their neighbor-s and kindred wlhom
they left behind them; and there was no reason for believing that
they have list any of tlheiir intelligence or patriotisiti! by the w'ysid(le,
while( cr4)s.in!- thle Isthmus or the Plains.  It was also believed, tlhat
after their arrival in the country, when  they had becomie familiar
witlh its to!)ography, climate, productions, and rescurces and had connected their destiny with it, they were fully as comlpetent to ji(lge for
themselves what kind of laws and institutions were best ardalted to
their condition and interests, as we were who never saw the coutitry,
end knew veey little about it.  To question their compete,ncy to do 
$TEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
tl.i, was to deny their capacity for self-government.  If they lrve
the requisite intelligence and honesty to be intrusted with the enact ment of laws for the governmuent of whlite men, I know of no reason
why tley should not be deemed competent to legislate for the negro.
If thee are sufficiently enlightened to make laws for the protection
of life, liberty, and property-of morals and education-to determine
the relation of husband and wife-of parent and child-I am not
aware that it requires any higher degree of civilization to regulate
the affairs of master and servant.  These things are all confided by
the C(onstitution of each State to decide for itself, and I know of no
reason why the'sa,ne principle should not be extended to the Terri tories. My votes and acts have been in accordance with these views
in all cases, except the instances in which I voted under your
instructions. Those were your votes, and not mine. I entered my
protest against them at the time-before and after they were recorded
-and shall never hold myself responsible for them.  I believed then,
and believe now, that it was better for the cause of freedom, of
humanity, and of republicanism, to leave +he people interested to
settle all these questions for themselves. They have intellect and
consciences as well as we, and have more interest in doing that
which is best for themselves and their posterity, than we have as
their self-constituted and officious guardians. I deem it fortunate for
the peace and harmony of the country that Congress, taking the
same view of the subject, rejected the Proviso, and passed the bills
in the shape in which I originally reported them. So far as slavery
is concerned, I am sure that any man who will take the pains to
examine the history of the question, will come to the conclusion that
this is the true policy, as well as the sound republican doctrine. Mr.
Douglas here went into a historical view of the subject, to show
that slavery had never been excluded in fact from one inch of the
American continent by act of Congress. When the federal Constitution was formed in'87, twelve of the thirteen States, then compose
ing the Confederation, held slaves, and sustained the institution of
slavery by their laws. Since that period slavery had been abolished in six of these twelve original slave States. How was this
effected?  Not by an act of Congress.   Not by the interposition of
the Federal Government. Congress had no power over the subject,
and never attempted to interfere with it. Slavery was abolished in
those States by the people of each, acting for themselves, and upon
their own motion and responsibility. The people became convinced
that it was for their own interests, and the interests of their posterity,
pecuniarily and morally, and they did it of their own free will, and
rigidly enforced their own laws.
So it was in the territory northwest of the Ohio River. By the acb
of Congress, known as the Ordinance of'87, slavery was prohibited
by law, but not excluded infact. Slavery existed in the Territ.) ries
of Illinois and Indiana, in spite of the Ordinance, under the authority
of the Territorial laws. Illinois was a slavebolding Territory ia de
5 
a      T3HE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
dancee of the act of Congress, but became a free State by the action
of our own people, when they framed our State constitution, preparatory to their admission into the Union.   So it was with Indiana.
Oregon prohibited slavery by the action of her people under their
provisional government, several years before Congress established
a Territorial government. In short, wherever slavery has been
excluded, and free institutions established, it has been done by the
voluntary action of the people interested. Wherever Congress attempted to interfere in opposition to the wishes of the people of the
Territory, its enactments remained a dead letter upon the statutebook, and the people took such legislative action as comnported with
their inclinations and supposed interests.
Mr. Douglas then referred to the country acquired from Mexico,
and called the attention of the audience to the fact, that the abolitionists had all predicted that slavery would certainly be introduced
into those territories, unless Congress interfered and prohibited it by
law, and condemned him because he was opposed to such interfer
ence. The problem is now solved. What was then a matter o
opinion and disputation, has become a historical fact. Time has
settled the controversy, and shown who was right and who was
wrong.  The Wilmot Proviso was not-adopted.  Congress did not
prohibit slavery in those territories, and yet slavery does not exist in
them. In California, it was prohibited by the people in the constitution with which that State was admitted into the Union. It is
well known that the people of New Mexico, when they formed a
constitution with the view of asking admission, also prohibited slavery. These facts show conclusively that all the predictions of the
abolitionists upon this subject have been falsified by history, and that
my own have been literally fulfilled. I refer to these facts, not in the
spirit of self-gratulation, but to show that these men, who have
alarmed the friends of freedom, and for a time partially controlled
the popular sentiment, were themselves mistaken, and misled their
followers; at the same time that their doctrine was at war with the
whole spirit of our republican institutions.
But let us return to the measures immediately under discussion.
It must be conceded that the question of the admission of California
was not free from difficulty,  independently of the subject of slavery. There were many irregularities in the proceedings; ill fact,
every step in her application for admission was irregular, when
viewed with reference to a literal compliance with the most approved
rules and usages in the admission of new States. On the other lhand,
it should be borne in mind that this resulted from the necessity of
the case.  Congress had failed to perform its duty-had established
no Territorial government, and made no provision for her adinission
into the Union. She was left without government, and was therefore compelled to provide one for herself. She could not conform
to rules which had not been established, nor comply with laws which
Wongreas had failed to enact.  The same irregularities had occurred 
STEPHEN A. DOU GLAS.
however, and been waived, in the admission of other States under
peculiar circumstances.  True, they had not all occurred in the case
of any one State; but some had in one, others in another; so that,
by looking into the circumstances attending the admission of each of
the new States, we find that all of these irregularities, as they are
called, had intervened and been waived in the course of ouir legislative history.   Besides, the territory of California was too extensive
for one State, (if we are to adopt the old States as a guide in carving
out new ones,) being about three times the size of New York; and
her boundaries were unnatural and unreasonable, disregarding the
topography of the country, and embracing the whole mining region
and her coast in the limits. Thus it will be seen that the slavery
question was not the only real difficulty that the adinission of California presented to the minds of calm and reflecting men; although
it cannot be denied that it was the exciting cause, which stimulated
a large portion of the people in one section to demand her instant
admission, and in the other, to insist upon her unconditional rejection. Even in this point of view, I humbly conceive that the ultras
in each extreme of the republic acted under a misconception of their
true interests and real policy. The whole of California-from the
very nature of the country, her rocks and sands, elevation above the
sea, climate, soil, and productions-was bound to be free territory
by the decision of her own people, no matter when admitted or how
divided. Hence, if considered with reference to the preponderance
of political power between the free and slaveholding States, it was
manifestly the true policy of the South to include the whole country
in one State; while the same reasons should have induced the North
to subdivide it into as many States as the extent of the territory
would justify. But, in my opinion. it was not proper for Congress
to act upon any such principle. We should know no North, no
South, in our legislation, but look to the interests of the whole country. By our action in this case, the rights and privileges of California and the Pacific coast were principally to be affected. By erecting the country into one State instead of three, the people are to be
represented in the Senate by two in the place of six senators. If
their interests suffer in consequence, they can blame  no one but
themselves, for Congress only confirmed what they had previously
done.  The problem in relation to slavery should have been much
more easily solved. It was a question which concerned the people
of California alone. The other States of the Union had no interest
in it, and no right to interfere with it. South Carolina settled that
question within her own limits to suit herself; Illinois has decided it
in a manner satisfactory to her own people; and upon what ltrinoiple are we to deprive the people of the State of Calibfornia of a right
which is common to every State in the Union?
The bills establishing Territorial governments for Utah and New
Mexico are silent upon the subject of slavery, except the provision
that, when they should be admitted into the Union as States, each
7 
8      TEE LIFE AND SPEEOHE8 OF
should decide the question of slavery for itself.  This latter provision
was not incorporated in my original bills, for the reason that I conceived it to involve a principle so clearly deducible from the Consti.
tution that it was unnecessary to embody it in the form of a legal
enactment. But when it was offered as an amendment to the bills,
I cheerfully voted for it, lest its rejection should be deemed a denial
of the principle asserted in it. The abolitionists of the North profess to regard these bills as a total abandonment of the principles of
freedom, because they do not contain an express prohibition of slavery; while the ultras of the South denounce the same measures as
equivae.nt to the Wilmot Proviso.
Of the Texas boundary I have but little to say, for the reason that
I have scarcely heard it alluded to since my return home, although
many complaints are made against it in other portions of the free
States. It was an unfortunate dispute, which could result in no
practical benefit to either party, no matter how decided. The Territory in controversy was of no considerable value. If there was a
spot on the face of the American continent more worthless than any
other; if there was a barren waste more desolate-sands more arid,
and rocks more naked than all others-it was'the country in displute
between Texas and the United States. Distant firom navigation, and
almost inaccessible for want of means of communication; void of
timber, fuel, water, or soil, with the exception of here and there a
nook in the gorges of the mountains, it was entirely useless, save as
it afforded hiding-places for the wild and roaming savages. And yet
the controversy was none the less serious and fierce in consequence
of the barrenness of the country. Texas believed it to be hers, and
deemed it a point of honor to maintain her title at all hazards and
against all odds. Many of the States entertained doubts of the validity of the Texan claim, while others considered it entirely without
foundation. In this state of the case, each party having partial possession, was mustering troops to render its possession complete to
the exclusion of the other. Many of the slaveholding States, from
sympathy with the peculiar institutions of Texas, were preparing to
array themselves on the one side, while most of the free States, from
aversion to those institutions, were expected to array themselves on
the other.  Thus were we plunging headlong and madly into a civil
war, involving results which no human wisdom could foresee, and
consequences which could be contemplated onlly with horror.
Fortunately this unnatural struggle was averted by the timely and
judicious interposition of Congress. The Committee on Territories,
to whom the subject had been referred, found it impossible to ascertain and agree upon the true boundary line of Texas, and accordingly authorized me, as their chairman, to report a bill for adjusting
the boundary upon an arbitrary but convenient line, drawn through
&he centre of the desert, and to pay Texas          dollars for relinquishing her claim to the waste lands outside of that line. I, there-i
fore, reported this,provision, at the same time that I b ought in the 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
bills for California, Utah, and New Mexico, with the intention of
moving to fill the blank with ten millions of dollars. When the
Conmmittee of Thirteen, which was subsequently appointed, united
into one the several bills which had been reported by the Commit tee on Territories, and thus formed what has been known as the
"Omnibus Bill," they made a slight change in the line which had
been agreed upon by the Territorial Committee. Upon the defeat
of the Omnibus, Mr. Pearce, of Maryland, brought in a separate bill
for adjusting this boundary, predicated upon the principle, also, of
an arbitrary but convenient line through the Desert, changing the
courses, however, so as to obviate some objections which have been
urged to the others, and paying Texas ten millions of dollars for relinquishing her claim. This bill, after having been joined in the
House of Representatives to the bill establishing a Territorial government for New Mexico, passed both houses, and became the law
of the land. The people of Texas have since ratified it at the polls
by an overwhelming majority; and thus this dangerous element of
agitation has been withdrawn from the controversy by the mutual
assent of the parties. And yet there are organized parties, in both
extremes of the Union, who are striving to reopen the controversy
by persuading the people that the rights and interests of their own
particular section have been basely betrayed in the settlement of
this question. At the South, it is boldly proclaimed, and every
where repeated, that sixty thousand square miles of slave territory
have been sold and converted into free soil. On the other hand,
the northern nullifiers and abolitionists are industriously impressing
it upon the people that more than fifty thousand square miles offree
soil have been transferred to Texas, and converted into slave territory by the act of Congress adjusting the Texas boundary. Such
are the extremities to which prejudice and ambition can lead desperate men I Neither party has gained or lost anything, so far as
the question of slavery is concerned. Texas has gained ten miIlions
of dollars, and the United States have saved, in blood and treasure,
the expenses of a civil war.
The next in the series of measures was the bill for the abolition of
the slave trade in the District of Columbia. This bill was prepared
and reported by the Committee of Thirteen, and I gave it my cordial
support. I has been represented at the South as a concession to the
North, to induce us to perform our duties under the Constitution in
thle surrender of fugitives from labor, and much opposition has been
raised against the whole scheme of adjustment on that accounit. 1
did not regard it in that light. My vote was given upon no such considerations. I believed each of the measures substantially right in
itself, and, under the extraordinary circumstances by which we wero
surrounded, eminently wise and expedient. The bill does not abolish
slavery in the District-does not emancipate the few slaves that ar,
there, and interferes with no man's right of property. It simply
provides that slaves shall not be brought from the surrounding
9 
10     THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
States, or elsewhere, into the District for sale. In this respect, Con
gress only followed the example of the legislatures of Maryland,
North Carolina, Kentucky, and, in fact, most of the slaveholding
States. The country embraced within the limits of the District of
Columbia, therefore, stands in precisely the same relation to the
slave trade under this law, that it would have stood under the laws
of Maryland, if it had never been separated from that State. What
justification can there be then, for the assertion that this was a concession to the North? It does nothing more nor less than to apply the
general principles of the legislation of a majority of the southern
States to the District of Columbia. But, while it was no concession
from one section to the other, I had a right to expect that those
modern philanthropists who have declaimed so eloquently and violently against the disgrace of the National Capitol, by the slave trade
within its precincts, would have rejoiced with exceeding joy at the
passage of this act. I have listened in vain for one word of approval or commendation from the advocates of abolition or nullification.
While the whole series of Compromise measures are denounced in
coarse and unmeasured terms, not one word of congratulation to the
friends of freedom-not a word of approval of the act or of the
conduct of those who voted for it-is allowed to escape their lips.
All the other measures of the scheme of adjustment are attempted
to be kept in the background, and concealed from the public view,
in order that more prominence and importance may be given to
what they are pleased to call "THE INFAMOUS FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL."
Before I proceed to the exposition of that bill, I will read the preamble and resolutions passed by the Common Council of this city,
night before last.
Mr. Douglas then read as follows:
a Whereas, The Constitution of the United States provides that the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of
rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it; and,
" Whereas, The late act of Congress purporting to be for the recovery of
fugitive slaves, virtually suspends the habeas corpus, and abolishes the right
of trial by jury, and by its provisions, not only fugitive slaves, but white meni,
' owing service' toanother in another State. viz., the apprentice, the mechanic, the farmer, the laborer engaged on contract or otherwise, whose terms of
service are unexpired, may be captured and carried offsummarily, and without
legal resource of any kind; and,
'" Whereas, No law can be legally or morally binding on us which violates
the provisions of the Constitution; and,
Whereas, Above all, in the responsibilities of human life, and the practice
and propagation of Christianity, the laws of God should be held paramount to
all human compacts and statutes: Therefore,
'Resolved, That the Senators and Representatives in Congress from the free
States, who aided and assisted in the passage of this infamous law, and those
who basely sneaked away from their seats, and thereby evaded the question,
richly merit the reproach of all lovers of freedom, and are fit only to be ranked
with the traitors, Benedict Arnold and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed his Lord
and Master for thirty pieces of silver.
".And Resolve. That the citizens, officers, and police of the city be, and 
S TEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 
they are hereby requested to abstain from all interference in the capture aind
delivering up of the fugitive from unrighteous oppression, of whatever nation,
name, or color.
" Resolved, That the Fugitive Slave Law lately passed by Congress is a cruel
and unjust law, and ought not to be respected by any intelligent community,
and that this Council will not require the city police to render any assistance
for the arrest of fugitive slaves.
"AYES-Aid. Milliken, Loyd, Sherwood, Foss, Throop, Sherman, Richards,
Brady and Dodge.
"NAYs-Atd. Page and Williams."
But for the passage of these resolutions, said Mr. D., I should not
have addressed you this evening, nor, indeed, at any time before my
return to the Capitol. I have no desire to conceal or withhold my
opinions, no wish to avoid the responsibility of a full and frank
expression of them, upon this and all other subjects which were
embraced in the action of the last session of Congress. My reasons
for wishing to avoid public discussion at this time, were to be found
in the state of my health and the short time allowed me to remain
among you.
Now to the resolutions. I make no criticism upon the language
in which they are expressed; that is a matter of taste, and in every
thing of that kind I defer to the superior refinement of our city
fathers. But it cannot be disguised that the polite epithets of
"traitors, Benedict Arnold, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed his
Lord( and Master for thirty pieces of silver," will be understood
abroad as having direct personal application to my esteemed colleague, Gen. Shields, and myself. Whatever may have been the intention of those who voted for the resolutions, I will do the members
of council the justice to say, that I do not believe they intended to
make any such application. But their secret intentions are of little
consequence, when they give their official sanction to a charge of
infamy, clothed in such language that every man who reads it must
give it a personal application. The whole affair, however, looks
strange, and even ludicrous, when contrasted with the cordial reception and public demonstrations of kindness and confidence, and even
gratitude for supposed services, extended to my colleague and myself
upon our arrival in this city one week ago. Then we were welcomed
home as public benefactors, and invited to partake of a public dinner,
by an invitation numerously signed by men of all parties and shades
of opinion. The invitation had no ooner been declined, for reasons
which were supposed to be entirely satisfactory, and my colleague
staited for his home, than the Common Council, who are presumed to
speak officially for the whole population of the city, attempted to
brand their honored guests with infamy, and denounce them as Benedict Arnolds and Judas Iscariots! I have read somewhere that it
was a polite custom, in other countries and a different age, to invite
those whom they secretly wished to destroy to a feast, in order to
secure a more convenient opportunity of administering the hemlock! I
I acquit the Common Council of any design of introducing that custom
11 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
into our l,ospitable city. But I have done with this subject, so fat
as it has a personal bearing.
It is a far more important and serious matter, when riewed with
reference to the principles involved, and the consequences which
may result. The Common Council of the city of Chicago have
assumed to themselves the right, and actually exercised the power,
of determining the validity of an act of Congress, and have declared
it void upon the ground that it violates the Constitution of the
United States and the law of God!  They have gone further; they
declared, by a solemn, official act, that a law passed by Congress
"ought not to be respected by any intelligent cQmmunity," and
have called upon " the citizens, officers, and police of the city"
to abstain from rendering any aid or assistance in its execution Il
What is this but naked, unmitigated nullification?  An act of the
American Congress nullified by the Common Council of the city of
Chicago!  Whence did the council derive their authority?  I have
been able to find no such provision in the city charter, nor am I
aware that the legislature of Illinois is vested with any rightful
power to confer such authority. I have yet to learn that a subordi nate municipal corporation is licensed to raise the standard of rebellion, and throw off the authority of the Federal Government at
pleasure! This is a great improvement upon South Carolinian nullification. It dispenses with the trouble, delay, and expense of conveninrg legislatures and assembling conventions of the people, for the
purpose of resolving themselves back into their original elements,
preparatory to the contemplated revolution. It has the high merit
of marching directly to its object, and by a simple resolution, written and adopted on the same night, relieving the people from their
oaths and allegiance, and of putting the nation and its laws at defiance! It nas heretofore been supposed by men of antiquated notions,
who have not kept upwith the progress of the age, that the Supreme
Court of the United States was invested with the power of determining the validity of an act of Congress passed in pursuance of the
forms of the Constitution. This was the doctrine of the entire
North, and of the nation, when it became necessary to exert the
whole power of the government to put down nullification in
another portion of the Union. But the spirit of the age is progressive, and is by no means confined to advancement in the arts and
physical sciences.  The science of politics and of government is also
rapidly advancing to maturity and perfection. It is not long since
that I heard an eminent lawyer propose an important reform in the
admirable judicial system of our State, which he thought would
render it perfect. It was so simple and eminently practicable, that
it could not fail to excite the admiration of even the casual inquirer.
His proposition was7 that our judicial system should be so improved
as to allow an appeal on all constitutional questions from the Supreme
Court of this State to two justices of the peace!  When that shall
have been effeeted, but one other -efoia will be necessary to rendw
it 
SREPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
our national system perfect, and that is, to change the federal Constitution, so as to authorize an appeal, upon all questions touching
the validity of acts of Congress, from the Supreme Court of the
United States to the Common Council of the city of Chicago!
So much for the general principles involved in the acts of the
council. I will now examine briefly the specific ground of objection
urged by the council against the Fugitive Slave Bill, as reasons why
it should not be obeyed.
The objections are two in number: first, that it suspends the writ
of habeas corpus in the time of peace, in violation of the Constitution; secondly, that it abolishes the right of trial by jury.
IHow the council obtained the information that these two odious
provisions were contained in the law, I am unable to divine. One
thing is certain, that the members of the council, who voted for these
resolutions, had never read the law, or they would have discovered
their mistake. There is not one word in it in respect to the writ of
habeas corpus or the right of trial by jury. Neither of these subjects is mentioned or referred to. The law is entirely silent on
those points. Is it to be said that an act of Congress which is
silent on the subject, ought to be construed to repeal a great constitutional right by implication? Besides, this act is only an amendment-amendatory to the old law-the act of 1793-but does not
repeal it. There is no difference between the original act and the
amendment, in this respect. Both are silent in regard to the writ
of habeas corpus and the right of trial by jury. If to be silent is to
suspend the one and-abolish the other, then the mischief was done
by the old law fifty-seven years ago. If this construction be correct,
the writ of habeas corpus has been suspended, and a trial by a jury
abolished, more than half a century, without anybody ever discovering the fact, or, if knowing it, without uttering a murmur of complaint.
Mr. Douglas then read the whole of the act of 1793, and compared
its provisions with the amendment of last session, for the purpose
of showing that the writ of habeas corpus and the right of trial by
jury were not alluded to or interfered with by either. But I maintain, said Mr. D., that the writ of habeas corpus is applicable to the
case of the arrest of a fugitive under this law, in the same sense in
which the Constitution intended to confer it, and to the fullest
extent for which that writ is ever rightfully issued in any case. In
this I am fully sustained by the opinion of Mr. Crittenden, the attorney-general of the United States. As soon as the bill passed the
two houses of Congress, an abolition paper raised the alarm that
the habeas corpus bill had been suspended. The cry was eagerly
caught up, and transmitted by lightning upon the wires, to every
art of the Union, by those whose avocation is agitation. The
resident of the United States, previous to signing the bill, referred
it to the attorney-general, for his opinion upon the point whether
any portion of it violated any provision of the Constitution of tLe
13 
14     THE LIFE AND SPEEOHES OF
United States, and especially whether it could possibly be construed
to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.  I have the answer of the
attorney-general before me, in which he gives it as his decided
opinion that every part of the law is entirely consistent with the
Constitution, and that it does not suspend the writ of habeas corpus.
I would commend the argument of the attorney-general to the
careful perusal of those who have doubts upon the subject. Upon
the presentation of this opinion, and with entire confidence in its
correctness, President Fillmore signed the bill.
I[Here Mr. Douglas was interrupted by a person present, who
called his attention to the last clause of the 6th section of the bill,
which he read, and asked him whait construction he put upon it, if
it did not suspend the writ of habeas corpus]
Mr. Douglas, in reply, expressed his thanks to the gentleman who
propounded the inquiry. His object was to meet every point, and
remove every doubt that could be possibly raised; and he expressed
the hope that every gentleman present would exercise the privilege
of asking him questions upon all points upon which he was not fully
satisfied. He then proceeded to answer the question which had been
propounded. That section of the bill provides for the arrest of the
fugitive and the trial before the commissioner; and if the facts of
servitude, ownership, and escape be established by competent evidence, the commissioner shall grant a certificate to that effect, which
certificate shall be conclusive of the right of the person in whose
favor it is issued to remove the fugitive to the State from which he
fled. Then comes the clause which is supposed to suspend the habeas
corpus: "And shall prevent all molestatian of said person or persons
by any pr,ocess issued by any court, judge, magistrate, or other person
wltomsoever."
The question is asked, whether the writ of habeas corpus is not a
-' PiOCESS" within the meaning of this act?. I answer, that it
undoubtedly is such a "process," and that it may be issued by any
court or judg,e having competent authority-not for the purpose of
"imolesting" a claimant, having a servant in his possession, with
sulch a certificate firom the commissioner or judge, but for the purpose
of ascertbaining the fact whether he has such a certificate or not;
and if so, whether it be in due form of law; and if not, by what
authority he holds the servant in custody.  Upon the return of the
writ of habeas corpus, the claimant will be required to exhibit to
the court his authority for conveying that servant back; and if he
produces a "certificate" from  the commissioner or judge in due
form of law, the court will decide that it has no power to "m1e1fst
the claimant" in the exercise of his rights under the law and the
Constitution. But if the claimant is not able to produce such certificate, or other lawful authority, or produces one which is not in
oo,nformity with law, the court will set the alleged servant at liberty,
fbr the very reason that the law has not been complied with. The
sale object of the writ of habeas corpus is to ascertain by what 
STEPHEN A DOUGLAS.
authority a person is held in custody; to release him if no su(ch
authority be shown; and to refrain from any molestation of the
claimant, if egal authority be produced. The habeas corpus is
necessary, therefore, to carry the fugitive law into effect, and, at
the same time, to prevent a violation of the rights of freemen under
it. It is essential to the security of the claimant, as well as the
protection of the rights of those liable to be arrested under it. The
reason that the writ of habeas corpus was not mentioned in the bill
must be obvious. The object of the new law seems to have been,
to amend the old one in those particulars wherein experience had
proven amendments to be necessary, and in all other respects to leave
it as it had stood from the days of Washington. The provisions of
the old law have been subjected to the test of long experience-to
the scrutiny of the bar and the judgment of the courts. The writ
of habeas corpus had been adjudged to exist in all cases under it,
and had always been resorted to when a proper case arose. In
amending the law there was no necessity for any new provision upon
this subject, because nobody desired to change it in this respect.
But why this extraordinary effort, on the part of the professed
friends of the fugitive, to force such a construction upon the law, in
the absence of any such obnoxious provision, as to deprive him of
the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus?  The law does not do so
in terms; and if it is ever accomplished, it must be done by implication, contrary to the understanding of those who enacted it, and in
opposition to the practice of the courts, acquiesced in by the people,
from the foundation of the government.   One would naturally
suppose, that if there was room for doubt as to what is the true
construction, those who claim to be the especial and exclusive
friends of the negro would contend for that construction which is
most favorable to liberty, justice, and humanity.   But not so80.
Directly the reverse is the fact. They exhaust their learning, and
exert all their ingenuity and skill, to deprive the negro of all rights
under the law.  What can be the motive?  Certainly not to protect
the rights of the free, or to extend liberty to the oppressed; for
they strive to fasten upon the law such a construction as would
defeat both of these ends. Can it be a political scheme, to render
the law odious, and to excite prejudice against all who voted for it,
or were unavoidably absent when it passed? No matter what the
motive, the effects would be disastrous to those whose rights they
profess to cherish, if their efforts should be successful.
Now, a word or two in regard to the right of trial by jury. The city
council, in their resolutions, say that this law abolishes that right.
I have already shown you that the council are mistaken- -that the
law is silent upon the subject, and stands now precisely as it has
stood for half a century. If the law is defective on that point, the
error was committed by our fathers in 1793, and the people have
acquiesced in it ever since, without knowing of its existence or carig to remedy it.  The new act neither takes away nor confers Ihe
15 
16     THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
right of trial by jury.  It leaves it just were our fathers,Ai the
Constitution left it under the old law. That the right oi trial by
jury exists in this country for all men, black or white, bond or free,
guilty or innocent, no man will be disposed to question who under stands the subject.  The right is of universal application, and exists
alike in all the States of Union; it always has existed, and always
will exist, so long as the Constitution of the United States shall be
respected and maintained, in spite of the efforts of the abolitionists
to take it away by the perversion of the fugitive law. The only
question is, where shall this jury trial take place? Shall the jury trial
be had in the State where the arrest is made, or the State from which
the fugitive escaped? Upon this point the act of last session says
nothing, and of course, leaves the matter as it stood under the law
of'93. Thle old law was silent on this point, and therefore left the
courts to decide it in accordance with the Constitution. The highest
judicial tribunals in the land have always held that the jury trial
must take place in the State under whose jurisdiction the question
arose, and whose laws were alleged to have been violated. The same
construction has always been given to the law for surrendering fugitives from justice. It provides also for sending back the fugitive,
but says nothing about the jury trial, or where it shall take place.
Who ever supposed that that act abolished the right of trial by jury 2
Every day's practice and observation teach us otherwise. The jury
trial is always had in the State from which the fugitive fled. So it
is with a fugitive from labor. When he returns, or is surrendered
under the law, he is entitled to a trial by jury of his right of freedom, and always has it when he demands it. There is great uniformity in the mode of proceeding in the courts of the southern States
in this respect. When the supposed slave sets up his claim, to the
judge or other officer, that he is free, and claims his freedom, it becomes the duty of the court to issue its summons to the master to
appear in court with the alleged slave, and there to direct an issue
of freedom or servitude to be made and tried by a jury. The master
is also required to enter into bonds for his own appearance and that
of the alleged slave at the trial of the cause, and that he will not
remove the slave from the county or jurisdiction of the court in the
mean time. The court is also required to appoint counsel to conduct
the cause for the slave, while the master employs his own counsel.
All the officers of the court are required by law to render all facilities to the slave for the prosecution of his suit free of charge, such as
issuing and serving subpoenas for witnesses, etc. If upon the trial
the alleged slave is held to be a free man, the master is required to
pay the costs on both sides. If, on the other hand, he is held to be
a slave, the State pays the costs.  This is the way in which the trial
by jury stood under the old law; and the new one makes no change
in this respect. If the act of last session be repealed, that will neither
benefit nor injure the fugitive, so far as the right of trial by jury is
concerned. 
RTEPHEN A. DO7GLAS.
For these two reasons-the habeas corpus and the trial by ju r y —the
(ommon Council have pronounced the law unconstitutional, and declared that it ought not to be respected by an enlightened community.
I have shown that neither of the objections are well founded, and that
if they had taken the trouble to read the law before they nullified
it, they would have avoided the mistake into which they have fallen
I have spoken of the acts of the city council in general terms, and it
may be inferred that the vote was unanimous. I take pleasure in
stating that I learn from  the publishled proceedings that there was
barely a quorum present, and that Aldermen Page and Williams
voted in the negative.  Having dispGsed of the two reasons assigned
by the Common Council for the nullification of tlhe law, I shall be
greatly indebted to any gentleman who will point out any other
objection to the new law, Which does not apply with equal force to
the old one. My object in drawing the parallel between the new
and old law is this: The law of'93 was passed by the patriots and
sages who framed our glorious Constitution, and approved by the
father of his country. I have always been taught to believe that
they were men well versed in the science of government, devotedly
attached to the cause of freedom and capable of construing the Constitution in the spirit in which they made it. That act has been
enforced and acquiesced in for more than half a century, without a
murmur or word of complaint from any quarter.
I repeat-will any gentleman be kind enough to point out a single
objection to the new law, which might not be urged with equal propriety to the act of'93?
[Here a gentleman present arose, and called the attention of Mr.
Douglas to the penalties in the seventh section of the new law, and
desired to know if there were any such obnoxious provisions in the
old one.]
Mr. Douglas then read the section referred to, and also the fourth
section of the act of'93, and proceeded to draw the parallel between
them. Each makes it a criminal offence to resist the due execution
of the law; to knowingly and willfully obstruct or hinder the claimant
in the arrest of the fugitive; to rescue such fugitive from the claimant when arrested; to harbor or conceal such person after notice
that he or she was a fugitive from labor. In this respect the two
laws were substantially the same in every important particular.
Indeed the one was almost a literal copy of the other. I can conceive of no act which would be an offence under the one, that would
not be punishable under the other. In the speeches last night, great
importance was given to the clause which makes it an offence to
harbor or conceal a fugitive. You were told that you could not
clothe the naked, nor feed the hungry, nor exercise the c dinary
charities toward suffering humanity, without incurring the penalty
of the law. Is this a true construction of that provision? The act
does not so read.  The law says that you shall not "harbor or concal such fugitive, so as to prevent the discovery and arrest of sudh
:. e:
17 
18     THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
person after notice or knowledge of the fact that such person was s
fugitive from service or labor as aforesaid.'" This does not deprivte you
of the privilege of extending charities to the fugitive. You may feed
him, clothe him, may lodge him, provided you do not harbor or conceal
him, so as to prevent discovery and arrest, after notice or knowle(dge
that he is a fugitive. The offence consists in preventing the discovery
and arrest of the fugitive after knowledge of the fact, and not in the
extending kindness and charities to hin..  This is the construction
put upon a similar provision in the old law by the highest judicial
tribunals in the land.'I'he only difference between the old law and
the new one, in respect to obstructing its execution is to be found
in the amount of the penalty, and not in the principle involved.
But it is further objected that the new law provides, in addition
to the penalty, for a civil suit for damages, to be recovered by an action
of debt by any court having jurisdiction of the cause. This is true;
but it is also true that a similar provision is to be found in the old
law. The concluding clause in the last section of the act of'93 is as
follows:
"Which penalty may be recovered by and for the benefit of such
claimant, by action of debt, in any proper court to try the same;
saving, moreover, to the person claiming such labor or service, his right
of action for or on account of the said itnjuries, or either of them."
Thus it will be seen, that upon this point there is no difference
between the new and the old law.
Is there any other provision of this law upon which explanation
is desired?
[A gentleman present referred to the 10th section, and desired an
explanation of the object and effect of the record from another State
therein provided for.]
I am glad, said Mlr. D., that my attention has been called to that
provision; for I heard a construction given to it, in the speeches last
night, entirely different to the plain reading and object of that section. It is said, that this provision authorizes the claimant to go
before a court of record of the county and State where he lives. and
there establish by ex-parte testimony, in the absence of the fugitive,
the facts of servitude, of ownership, and escape; and when a record
of these facts shall have been made, containing a minute description
of the slave, it shall be conclusive evidence against a person corresponding to that description, arrested in another State, and shall consign the person so arrested to perpetual servitude.  The law contemplates no such thing, and authorizes no such result. I have thie
charity to believe that those who have put this construction unon
it have not carefully examined it.  The record from another State
predicated upon " satisfactory proof to such court or judge"' befoire
whom the testimony may be adduced, and the record made, is to be
conclasive of two facts only:
1st. That the person named in this record does owe service to the
person in whose behalf the record is made.
,-, -:....... 1. 
STE P I E N A. DOUGLAS.
2d. That such person has escaped from service.
The language of the law is, that "the transcript of  the record
Authenticated," etc., "shall be held and taken to be full and conclinsive evidence of the fact of escape, and that the service or labor of
such person escaping is due to the party in such record mentioned."
The record is conclusive of these two facts, so far as to authorize the
fugitive to be sent back for trial under the laws of the State whence
he fled; but it i no evidence thr(~t the person arrested here is thefugitive named in the reco?rd. The question of identity is to be provei
here to the satisfaction of the commissioner or judge, before whom
the trial is had, by "other andfGuenther evidence."  -This is the great
point in the case. The whole question turns upon it. The man
arrested may correspond to the description set forth in the record,
and yet not be the same individual. We often meet persons resembling each other to such an extent that the one is frequently mistaken for the other. The idcni: ty of the person becomes a matter
of proof-a fact to be establis'-ed by the testimony of competent
and disinterested witnesses, and to be decided by the tribunal before
whom the trial is had, conscientiously and impartially, according to the evidence in the case. The description in the record,
unsupported by other testimony, is not evidence of the identity. It
is not inserted for the especial benefit of the claimant-much less to
the prejudice of the alleged slave. It is required as a test of truth,
a safeguard against fraud, which will often operate favorably to the
fugitive, but never to his injury. If the description be accurate and
true, no injustice can possibly result from it. But if it be erroneous
or false, the claimant is concluded by it; and the fugitive, availing
himself of the error, defeats the claim, in the same/manner as a discrepancy between the allegations and the proof, in any other case,
results to the advantage of the defendant. I repeat, that when an
arrest is made under a record from another State, the identity of the
person must be established by competent testimony.   The trial in
this instance, would be precisely the same as in the case of a white
man arrested on a charge of being a fugitive from justice. The writ
of the governor, predicated upon an indictment, or even an affidavit
from another State, containing the charge of crime, would be conclusive evidence of the right to take the fugitive back; but the
identity of the person in that case, as well as a fugitive from labor,
must be proven in the State where the arrest is made, by competent
witnesses, before the tribunal provided by law for that purpose. in
this respect, therefore, the negro is placed upon a perfect equality
with the white man who is so unfortunate as to be charged with au
offence in another State, whether the charge by true or false.  lI
some respects, the law guards the rights of the negro, charged with
being a fugitive from labor, more rigidly than it does those of a
white man who is alleged to be a fugitive from justice. The record
from another State must be predicated upon "proof  satisfactory
to the court or judge" before whom it is made, and must set for:t
16
19 
90     TRE LIFE AND SPEECHES OP
the "matter proved," before it can be evidence against a flgitire
from labor, or for any purpose; whereas, an innocent white man,
who is so unfortunate as to be falsely charged with a crime in
another State, by the simple affidavit of an unknown person, without
indictment or proof to the satisfaction of any court, is liable to be
transported to the most distant portions of this Union for trial.
Here we find the act of last session is a great improvement upon
the law of'93 in reference to fugitives, white or black, whether they
fled from justice or labor. - But it is objected that the testimony
before the court making the record is ex parte, and therefore in vio lation of the principles of justice and the Constitution; because it
deprives the accused of the privilege of meeting the~witnesses face
to face, and of cross-examination. Gentlemen forget that all pro ceedings for the arrest of fugitives are necessarily ex parte, from the
nature of the case. They have fled beyond the jurisdiction of the
court, and the object of the proceeding is, that they may be brought
back, confront the witnesses, and receive a fair trial according to the
Constitution and laws. If they would stay at home in order to
attend the trial, and cross-examine the witnesses, the record would
be unnecessary, and the fugitive law inoperative. It is no answer
to-this proposition to say that slavery is no crime, and therefore the
parallel does not hold good. I am not speaking of the guilt or inno cence of slavery. I am discussing our obligations under the Consti tution of the United States. That sacred instrument says that a
fugitive from labor "shall be delivered up on  the claim  of the
owner." The same clause of the same instrument provides that
fugitives from justice shall be delivered up. We are bound by our
oaths to our God to see that claim as well as every other provision
of the Constitution carried into effect. The moral, religious and
constitutional obligations resting upon us, here and hereafter, are the
same in the one case as in the other. As citizens, owing allegiance
to the government and duties to society, we have no right to inter pose our individual opinions and scruples as excuses for violating the
supreme law of the land as our fathers made it, and as we are sworn
to support it. The obligation is just as sacred, under the Constitu tion, to surrender fugitives from labor, as fugitives from justice. And
the Congress of the United States, according to the decision of the
Supreme Court, are as imperatively commanded to provide the
necessary legislation for the one as for the other. The act of 1793,
to which I have had occasion to refer so frequently, and which has
been read to you, provided for these two cases in the same bill. The
first half of that act, relating to fugitives from justice, applies, from
the nature and necessity of the case, principally to white men; and
the other half for the same reasons, applies exclusively to the negro
race.  I have shown you, by reading and comparing the two laws in
your presence, that there is no constitutional guaranty —or common
law right-or legal, or judicial privilege-for the protection of the
w,hite men against oppression and injustice, under the law. framed 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
min 193, and now in force, for the surrender of fugitives from justice,
that does not apply in all its force in behalf of the negro, when
arrested as a fugitive from labor, under the act of the last session.
What more can the friends of the negro ask than, in all his civil and
legal rights under the Constitution, he shall be placed on an equal
footing with the white man? - But it is said that the law is susceptible of being abused by perjury and false testimony. To what human
enactment does not the same objection lie? You, or I, or any other
man, who was never in California in his life, is liable, under the
Constitution, to be sent there in chains for trial as a fugitive from
justice, by means of perjury and fraud. But does this fact prove
that the Constitutions, and the laws for carrying it into effect, are
wrong, and should be resisted, as we were told last night, even unto
the dungeon, the gibbet and the grave? It only demonstrates to us
the necessity of providing all the safeguards that the wit of man can
devise, for the protection of the innocent and the free, at the same
time that we religiously enforce, according to its letter and spirit,
every provision of the Constitution. I will not say that the act
recently passed for the surrender of fugitives from labor, accomplishes all this; but I will thank any gentleman to point out any one
arrier against abuse in the old law, or in the law for the surrender
of white men, as fugitives from justice, that is not secured to the
negro under the new law. I pause, in order to give any gentleman
an opportunity to point out the provision. I invite inquiry and
examination. My object is to arrive at the truth-to repel error and
dissipate prejudice-and to avoid violence and bloodshed.  Will any
gentleman point out the provision in the old law, for securing and
vindicating the rights of the free man, that is not secured to him in
the act of last session?
[A gentleman present rose and called the attention of Mr. Douglas
to the provision for paying out of the treasury of the United States
the expenses of carrying the fugitive back in case of anticipated
resistance.]
Ah, said Mr. D., that is a question of dollars and cents, involving
no other principle than the costs of the proceeding! I was discussing the question of human rights-the mode of protecting the rights
of freemen from invasion, and the obligation to surrender fugitives
under the Constitution. Is it possible that this momentous question,
which only forty-eight hours ago was deemed of sufficient iml)ortance to authorize the city council to nullify an act of Congress, and
raise the standard of rebellion against the Federal Government, has
dwindled down into a mere petty dispute, who shall pay the costs of
suit? This is too grave a question for me to discuss on this occasion.
I confess my utter inability to do it justice. Yesterday the Constitution of the ocean-bound republic had been overthrown; the
privileges of the writ of habeas corpus had been suspended; the
right of trial by jury had been abolished; pains and penalties hadl
bec imposed upon every humane citizen who should feed the
21 
22     THE LIFE AND SPEUCHES OF
hungry and cover the naked; the law of God had been outraged by
an infamous act of a traitorous Congress; and the standard of rebel.
lion, raised by our city fathers, was floating in the breeze, calling on
all good citizens to rally under its sacred folds, and resist with fire
and sword-the payment of the costs of suit upon the arrest of a
fugitive from labor!
I will pass over this point, and inquire whether there is any other
provision of this law upon which an explanation is desired? I hope
no one will be backward in propounding inquiries, for I have but a
few days to remain with you, and desire to make a clean business of
this matter on the present occasion.  Is there any other objection?
[A gentleman rose, and desired to know why the Bill provides for
paying ten dollars to the commissioner for his fee in case he decided in
favor of the claimant, and only five dollars if he decided against him.]
I presume, said Mr. Douglas, that the reason was that he would
have more labor to perform. If, after hearing the testimony, the
commissioner decided in favor of the claimant, the law made it his
duty to prepare and authenticate the necessary papers to authorize
him to carry the fugitive home; but if he decided against him, he
had no such labor to perform.  The law seems to be based upon the
principle that the commissioner should be paid according to the service he should render-five dollars for presiding at the trial, and five
dollars for making out the papers in case the testimony should require him to return the fugitive.  This provision appears to be
exciting considerable attention in the country, and I have been exceedingly gratified at the proceedings of a mass meeting held in a
county not far distant, in which it was resolved unanimously that
they could not be bribed, for the sum of five dollars, to consign a
freeman to perpetual bondage I This shows an exalted state of moral
feeling, highly creditable to those who participated in the meeting.
I doubt not they will make their influence felt throughout the State,
and will instruct their members of the legislature to reform our
criminal code in this respect. Under our laws, as they have stood
for many years, and probably from the organization of our State
government, in all criminal cases, on the preliminary examination
before the magistrates, and in all the higher courts, if the pris(nei
be convicted, the witnesses, jurors, and officers, are entitled to their
fees and bills of costs; but if he be acquitted, none of them receive
a cent.  In order to diffuse the same high moral sense throughout
the whole community, would it not be well, at their next meeting,
to pass another resolution, that they would not be bribed by the
fees and costs of suit in any case, either as witnesses, jurors, magistrates, or in any other capacity, to consign an innocent man to a
dismal cell in the penitentiary, or expose him to an ignominious
death upon the gallows? Such a resolution might do a great deal
of good in elevating the character of our people abroad, at the same
time that it migh' inspire increased confidence in the liberality and
oonscientiousnes, )f those who adopted it. 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
Is there any other objection to this law?
[A gentleman rose, and called the attention of Mr. Douglas to the
provision vesting the appointment of the commissioners under it in
the courts of law, instead of the President and Senate, and asked if
that was not a violation of that provision of the Constitution which
says that judges of the Supreme Courts, and of the inferior oourts,
should be appointed by the President and Senate.]
I thank the gentleman, said Mr. D., for calling my attention to
this point.  It was made in the speech of a distinguished lawyer last
night, and evidently produced great effect upon the minds of the
audience. The gentleman's high professional standing, taken in connection with his laborious preparation for the occasion, as was apparent to all, from his lengthy written brief before him, while speaking, inspired implicit confidence in the correctness of his position.
My answer to the objection will be found in the Constitution itself,
which I will read, so far as it bears upon this question:
"The President shall nominate, and by and with the consent of the Senate,
shall appoint ambassadors, other' public ministers, and consuls, judges of the
Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, where appointments
are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by
law."
Now it will be seen that the words "inferior courts TM are not mentioned in the Constitution. The gentleman in his zeal against the
law, and his frenzy to resist it, interpolated these words, and then
made a plausible argument upon them. I trust this was all unintentional, or was done with the view of fulfilling the "higher law."
But there is another sentence in this same clause of the Constitution which I have not yet read. It is as follows:
"But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior offeers
as they may think proper in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in
the heads of Departments."
The practice under this clause has usually been to confer the power
of appointing those inferior officers, whose duties were executive oi
ministerial, upon the President alone, or upon the head of the appropriate department; and in like manner to give to the courts of law
the privilege of appointing their subordinates, whose duties were in
their nature judicial.  What is meant by "inferior officers," whose
appointment may be vested in the "courts of law," will be seen by
reference to the 8th section of the Constitution, where the powers
of Congress are enumerated, and among them is- the following:
" To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court."
Is the tribunal which is to carry the fugitive law into effect inferior to the Supreme Court of the United States?  If it is, the Constitution expressly provides for vesting the appointment in the courts
of law. I will remark, however, that these commissioner- are not
23 
4  THE LIFE AND  8SPECHES Ol
appointed under the new law, but in obedience to an act of Con,
gress which has stood on the statute books for many years. If those
who denounde and misrepresent the act of last session, had condescended to read it before they undertook to enlighten the people
upon it, they,would have saved themselves the mortification of exposure, as 1 will show by reading the first section.
Here Mr. Douglas read the law, and proceeded to remark  Thus
it will be seen that these commissioners have been in office for years,
with their duties prescribed by law, nearly all ef which were of a
judicial character, and that the new law only imposes additional
duties, and authorizes the increase of the number. Why has not this
grave constitutional objection been discovered before, and the people
informed how their rights have been outraged in violation of the
supreme law of the land? Truly, the passage of the fugitive bill has
thrown a flood of light upon constitutional principles I
Is there any other objection to the new law which does not apply
to the act of'93?
[A gentleman rose, and said that he would like to ask another
question, which was this: if the new law was so similar to the old
one, what was the necessity of passing any at all, since the old one
was still in force?]
Mr. Douglas, in reply, said, that is the very question I was anxious
some one should propound, because I was desirous of an opportunity of answering it. The old law answered all the purposes for
which it was enacted tolerably well, until the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Priggs vs. the State
of Pennsylvania, eight or nine years ago. That decision renderer
the law comparatively inoperative, for the reason that there were
scarcely any officers left to execute it.  It will be recollected that
the act of'93 imposed the duty of carrying it into effect upon the
magistrates and other officers under the State governments. These
officers performed their duties under that law, with fidelity, for
about fifty years, until the Supreme Court, in the case alluded
to, decided that they were under no legal obligation to do so, and
that Congress had no constitutional power to impose the duty upon
them. From that time, many of the officers refused to act, and soon
afterward the legislature of Massachusetts, and many other States,
passed laws making it criminal for their officers to perform these
duties. Hence the old law, although efficient in its provisions, and
similar in most respects, and especially in those now objected to,
almost identical with the new law, became comparatively a dead
letter for want of officers to carry it into effect. The judges of the
United States courts were the only officers left who were authorized
to execute it.  In this State, for instance, Judge Drummond, whose
residence was in the extreme northwest corner of the State, within
six miles of Wisconsin and three of Iowa, and in the direction where
fugitives were least likely to go, wa  the only person authorized to
try the case. 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
If a fugitive was arrested at Shawneetown or Alton, three or four
hundred miles from the residence of the judge, the master would
attempt to take him across the river to his home in Kentucky oI
Missouri, without first establishing his right to do so. This was
calculated to excite uneasiness and doubts in the minds of our citizens, as to the propriety of permitting the negro to be carried out
of the State, without the fact of his owing service, and having es,
caped, being first proved, lest it might turn out that the negro was
a free man and the claimant a kidnapper.  And yet, according
to the express term of the old law, the master was authorized to seize
his slave wherever he found him, and to carry him back without
process, or trial, or proof of any kind whatsoever. Hlence, it was
necessary to pass the act of last session, in order to carry into
effect, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the provisions of the law
and the Constitution on the one hand, and to protect the free colored
man from being kidnapped and sold into slavery by unprincipled
men on the other hand. The purpose of the now law is to accomplish these two objects-to appoint officers to carry the law into
effect, in the place of the magistrates relieved from that duty by the
decision of the Supreme Court, and to guard against harassing and
kidnapping the free blacks, by preventing the claimant from carrying the negro out of the State, until he establishes his legal right to
do so.  The new law, therefore, is a great improvement in this respect upon the old one, and is more favorable to justice and freedom,
and better guarded against abuse.
[A person present asked leave to propound another question to Mr.
Douglas, which was this: "If the new law is more favorable to freedom than the old one, why did the southern slaveholders vote for it,
and desire its passage?"]
Mr. Douglas said he would answer that question with a great deal
of pleasure. The southern members voted for it for the reason that
it was a better law than the old one-better for them, better for us,
and better for the free blacks. It places the execution of the law in
the hands of responsible officers of the government, instead of leaving every man to take the law into his own hands and to execute it
for himself. It affords personal security to the claimant while arresting his servant and taking him back, by providing him with the
opportunity of establishing his legal rights by competent testimony
before a tribunal duly authorized to try the case, and thus allay all
apprehensions and suspicions, on the part of our citizens, that he is
a villain, attempting to steal a free man for the purpose of selling him
into slavery. The slaveholder has as strong a desire to protect the
rights of the free black man as we leave, and much more interest to
do so; for he well knows, that if outrages should be tolerated under
the law, and free men are seized and carried into slavery; from that
moment the indignant outcry against it would be so str(ng here and
everywhere, that even a fugitive from labor could not be returned
lest he also might happen to be free. The interest of the slaveholder
25 
~6     THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
therefore, requires a law which shall protect the rights of all fox
men, black or white, from any invasion or violation whatever.  I
ask the question, therefore, whether this law is not better than the
old one-better for the North and the South-better for the peace and
quiet of the whole country? Let it be remembered that this law is but
an amendment to the act of'93, and that the old law still remains
in force, except so far as it is modified by this. Every man who
voted against this modification, thereby, voted to leave the old law
in force; for I am not aware that any member of either house of
Congress ever had the hardihood to propose to repeal the law, and
make no provisions to carry the Constitution into effect.   But the
cry of repeal, as to the new law, has already gone forth.  Well, suppose it succeeds; what will thof.e have gained who joined in the
shout?  Have I not shown that 11 the material objections they urge
against the new law, apply with equal force to the old one? What
do they gain, therefore, unless they propose to repeal the old law,
also, and make no provision for performing our obligations under the
Constitution?  This must be the object of all men who take that
position.  To this it must copie in the end.  The real objection is not
to the new law, nor to the old one, but to the Constitution itself.
Those of you who hold the,,e opinions, do not mean that the fugitive
from labor shall be taken back.  That is the real point of your objection. You -would not care a farthing about the new law, or the old
law, or any other law, or what provisions it contained, if there was
a hole in it big enough for the fugitive to slip through and eseape.
Habeas corpuses-trials by jury-records fromn other States-pains
and penalties-the whole catalogue of objections, would be all moonshine, if the negro was not required to go back to his master. Tell
me, frankly, is not this the true character of your objection?
[Here several gentlemen gave an affirmative answer.]
Mr. Douglas said he would answer that objection by reading a
portion of the Constitution of the United States. He then read as
follows:
"No person held to service or labor in one State,under the laws thereof,
escaping into another, shall, into consequence of any law or regulation therein,
be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on the
claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
This, said Mr. D., is the supreme law of the" land, speaking to
every citizen of the republic. The command is imperative. There
is no avoiding-no escaping the obligation, so long as we live under,
and claim the protection of, the Constitution. We must yield implicit
obedience, or we must take the necessary steps to release ourselves
from the obligation to obey. There is no other alternative. We
must stand by the Constitution of the Union, with all its compromises, or we must abolish it, and resolve each State back into its
original elements.  It is, therefore, a question of union or disunion.
We cannot expect our brethren of other States to remain faithful to
the compact, and permit us to be faithless. Are we prepared, there 
8STEPHEN A. DcUGLAS.
tore, to execute faithfully and honestly the compact our fathers have
made for us?
[HIere a gentleman rose, and inquired of Mr. Douglas, whether the
clause in the Constitution providing for the surrender of fugitive
slaves was not in violation of the law of God?]
Mr. Douglas in reply: The divine law is appealed to as authority
for disregarding our most sacred duties to society. The city council
have appealed to it, as their excuse for nullifying an act of Congress;
and a committee embodied the same principle in their resolutions to
the meeting in this hall last night, as applicable both to the Constilution and laws. The general proposition that there is a law paramount to all human enactments-the law of the Supreme Ruler of
Universe-I trust that no civilized and Christian people is prepared
to question, much less deny. We should all recognize, respect, and
revere the divine law. But we should bear in mind that the law of
God, as revealed to us, is intended to operate on our consciences, and
insure the performance of our duties as individuals and Christians.
The divine law does not prescribe the form of government under
which we shall live, and the character of our political and civil institutions. Revelation has not furnished us with a constitution-a code
of international law and a system of civil and municipal jurisprudence. It has not determined the right of persons and propertymuch less the peculiar privileges which shall be awarded to each
class of persons under any particular form of government. God has
created man in his own image, and endowed him with the right of
self-government, so soon as he shall evince the requisite intelligence,
virtue, and capacity to assert and enjoy the privilege. The history
of world furnishes few examples where any considerable portion of
the human race have shown themselves sufficiently enlightened and
civilized to exercise the rights and enjoy the blessings of freedom.
In Asia and Africa we find nothing but ignorance, superstition, and
despotism. Large portions of Europe and America can scarcely lay
claim to civilization and Christianity; and a still smaller portion
have demonstrated their capacity for self-government. Is all this
contrary to the laws of God?  And if so, who is responsible?  The
civilized world have always held, that when any race of men have
shown themselves so degraded, by ignorance, superstition, cruelty,
and barbarism, as to be utterly incapable of governing themselves,
they must, in the nature of things, be governed by others, by such
laws as are deemed applicable to their condition. It is upon this
principle alone that England justifies the form of government she
has established in the Indies, and for some of her other coloniesthat Russia justifies herself in holding her serfs as slaves, and selling
them as a part of the land on which they live-that our Pilgrim
Fathers justified themselves in reducing the negro and Indian to
servitude, and selling them as property-that we in Illinois and
lost of the free States, justify ourselves in denying the negro and
l.e Indian the privilege of voting, and all other political rghts — and
27 
28    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
that many of the States of the Union justify themselves in depriving
the white man of the right of the elective franchise, unless he is fortunate enough to own a certain amount of property.
These things certainly violate the principle of absolute equality
among men, when considered as component parts of a political society
or government, and so do many provisions of the Constitution of the
United States, as well as the several States of the Union. In fact, no
government ever existed on earth in which there was a perfect equality,
in all things, among those composing it and governed by it. Neither
sacred nor profane history furnishes an example. If inequality in the
form and principles of government is therefore to be deemed a violation of the laws of God, and punishable as such, who is to escape?
Under this principle all Christendom is doomed, and no Pagan can
hope for mercy? Many of these things are, in my opinion, unwise
and unjust, and, of course, subversive of republican principles; but
I am not prepared to say that they are either sanctioned or condemned by the divine law. Who can assert that God has prescribed
the form and principles of government, and the character of the political, municipal and domestic institutions of men on earth?  This
doctrine would annihilate the fundamental principle upon which our
political system rests. Our forefathers held that the people had an
inherent right to establish such Constitution and laws for the government of themselves and their posterity, as they should deem best
calculated to insure the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness; and that the same might be altered and changed as experience should satisfy them to be necessary and proper. Upon this
principle the Constitution of the United States was formed, and our
glorious Union established. All acts of Congress passed in pursuance
of the Constitution are declared to be the supreme laws of the land,
and the Supreme Court of the United States is charged with expounding the same. All officers and magistrates, under the Federal and
State governments-executive, legislative, judicial, and ministerialare required to take an oath to support the Constitution, before they
can enter upon the performance of their respective duties. Any citizen, therefore, who in his conscience, believes that the Constitution
of the United States is in violation of a "higher law," has no right,
as an honest man, to take office under it, or exercise any other function of citizenship conferred by it.  Every person born  under the
Constitution owes allegiance to it; and every naturalized citizen
takes an oath support it. Fidelity to the Constitution is the only
passport to the enjoyment of rights under it. When a senator elect
presents his credentials, he is not allowed to take his seat until he
places his hand upon the holy evangelist, and appeals to his God for
she sincerity of his vows to support the Constitution. He, who does
this with a mental reservation or secret intention to disregard any
provision of the Constitution, commits a double crLme-is morally
guilty of perfidy to his God and treason to his country!
If the Constitution of the United States is to be repudiated upon 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS..
the ground that it is repugnant to the divine law, where are the
friends of freedom and Christianity to look for another and a better?
Who is to be the prophet to reveal the will of God and establish a
Theocracy for us?
Is he to be found in the ranks of northern abolitionism, or of
southern disunion; or is the Common Council of the city of Chicago
to have the distinguished honor of furnishing the chosen one? I
will not venture to inquire what are to be the form and principles
of the new government, or to whom is to be intrusted the execution
of its sacred functions; for, when we decide that the wisdom of our
revolutionary fathers was foolishness, and their piety wickedness,
and destroy the only system of self government that has ever realized the hopes of the friends of freedom, and commanded the respect
of mankind, it becomes us to wait patiently'until the purposes of the
Latter Day Saints shall be revealed unto us.
For my part, I am prepared to maintain and preserve inviolate the
Constitution as it is with all its compromises, to stand or fall by the
American Union, clinging with the tenacity of life to all its glorious
memories of the past and precious hopes for the future.
Mr. Douglas then explained the circumstances which rendered his
absence unavoidable when the vote was taken on the fugitive bill
in the Senate. He wished to avoid no responsibility on account of
that absence, and therefore desired it to be distinctly understood that
he should have voted for the bill if he could have been present. He
referred to several of our most prominent and respected citizens by
name, as personally cognizant of the fact that he was anxious at that
time to give that vote.  He believed the passage of that or some
other efficient law a solemn duty, imperatively demanded by the
Constitution.  In conclusion, Mr. D. made an earnest appeal to our
citizens to rally as one man to the defence of the Constitution and
laws, and above all things, and under all circumstances, to put down
violence and disorder, by maintaining the supremacy of the laws.
He referred to our high character for law and order heretofore, and
also to the favorable position of our city for commanding the trade
between the North and South, through our canals and railroads, to
show that our views and principles of action should be broad, liberal,
and national, calculated to encourage union and harmony, instead of
disunion and sectional bitterness. lihe concluded by remarking, that
he considered this question of fidelity to the Constitution and supremacy of the laws, as so far paramount to all other considerations,
that he had prepared some resolutions to cover these points only,
which he would submit to the meeting and take their judgment upon
them. If he had consulted his own feelings and views only, he
should have embraced in the resolutions a specific approval of all the
measures of the compromise; but as the question of rebellion and
resistance to the Federal Goverr~ment has been distinctly presente-,
it has been thought advisable to meet that issue on this occasion, dis
tiuct and separate from all others.
29 
30           THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
Mr. Douglas then offered the following resolutions, which were
adopted without a dissenting voice:
Resolved, That it is the sacred duty of every friend of the Union to maintain,
and preserve inviolate, every provision of oursfederal Constitution.
Resolved, That any law enacted by Congress, in pursuance of the Constitu tion, should be respected as such by all good and law-abiding citizens, and
should be faithfully carried into effect by the officers charged withits execution.
Resolved, That so long as the Constitution of the United States provides, that
all persons held to service or labor in one State, escaping into another State,
" SHALL BE DELIVERED UP on the claim of the party to whom the service or
labor may be due," and so long as members of Congress are required to take
an oath to support the Constitution, it is their solemn and religious duty to pass
all laws necessary to carry that provision of the Constitution into effect.
Resolved, That if we desire to preserve the Union, and render our great
Republic inseparable and perpetual, we must perform all our obligations under
the Constitution, at the same time that we call upon our brethren in other
States to yield implicit obedience to it.
Resolved, That as the lives, property and safety of ourselves and our families
depend upon the observance and protection of the laws, every effort to excite
any portion of our population to make resistance to the due execution of the
laws of the land, should be promptly and emphatically condemned by every
good citizen.
Resolved, That we will stand or fall by the American Union and its Constitution, with all its compromises, with its glorious memories of the past and precious hope of the future.
[The following was offered in addition by B. S. Morris, and also
adopted:]
Resolved, That we, the people of Chicago, repudiate the resolutions passed
by the Common Council of Chicago upon the subject of the Fugitive Slave Law
passed by Congress at its last session.
On the succeeding night the common council of the city repealed
their nullifying resolution by a vote of 12 to 1. 
8TEPHEli A  DCUGLAS.
ON THE CLAYTON BULWER TREATY.
Deliverea  in the Senate of the United States, March 10 and 17, 1853.
On returning to the Senate of the United States at th
special session, commencing on the 4th March, 1843, Senator
Clayton, of Delaware, offered the following resolutions:
Resolved, That the President be respectfully requested, if compatible in his
opinion with the public interest, to communicate to the Senate the propositions
mentioned in the letter of the secretary of state accompanying the Executive
message to the Senate of the 18th February last, as having been agreed upon
by the Department of State, the British minister, and the state of Costa Rica,
on the 30th of April, 1852, having for their object the settlement of the territorial controversies between the states and governments bordering on the
river San Juan.
Resolved, That the secretary of state be directed to communicate to the
Senate such information as it maybe in the power of his department to furnish,
in regard to the conflicting claims of Great Britain and the state of Honduras,
to the island of Roatan, Bonacca, Utilla, Barbarat, Helene, and Morat, in or
near the Bay of Honduras.
On the 8th and 9th of March, 1853, he addressed the
Senate on the subject, and arraigned Senators Cass, Mason,
and Douglas, for the part they had taken in the debate
during the regular session. On the o10th of March, MHr.
Douglas replied as fallows:
MR. PRESIDENT: I have nothing to do with the controversy which
has arisen between the senator from Delaware (Mr. Clayton) and
my venerable friend from Michigan (Mr. Cass), who is now absent
in consequence of the severe illness of one nearest and dearest to
him. We all know enough of that senator to be assured that when
he shall be in his place, he will be prompt to respond to any calls
that may be made upon him. Neither have I anything to do with
the dispute which has grown up among senators in respect to the
boundary of Central America, and the position of the British settleinent at the Balize. I leave that in the hands of those who have
inade themselves parties to the controversy. Nor shall I become a
party to the discussion upon the issue between the senator from
Delaware and the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations,
in their report on that question. Not having been present when the
committee made their report, and not yet having had the opportunity
of reading it, I leave the chairman of the committee to vindicate hi,
81 
82     THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
positions, as I doubt not he will prove himself abundantly able to do
I have, therefore, only to ask the attention of the Senate to such
points as the senator from Delaware has chosen to make against a
speech delivered by me a few weeks ago in this chamber.
The senator seems to complain that I should have questioned the
propriety of withholding from the consideration of the Senate what
is known as the Hise treaty, and the substitution of the Clayton and
Bulwer treaty in its place. Those two treaties presented a distinct
issue of great public concern to the country; and it was a difference
of opinion between him and me as to which system of policy should
prevail. I advocated that system which would secure to the United
States the sole and exclusive privilege of controlling the communication between the two oceans.  He substituted that other policy
which opened the privilege to a partnership between the United
States  and  Great  Britain.   The  senator  has  assigned  various
reasons for withholding the Hise treaty from the consideration of
the Senate. The first is, that it was concluded by Mr. Hise without
the authority of this government. That may be true, but it is the
first time I have heard it argued as a valid reason for withholding
from the consideration of the Senate a treaty the objects and provisions of which were desirable. The treaty with New Granada,
which he so warmly commends in his speech, was made by Mr. Bidlack without authority. President Polk stated this fact in his
mnessage communicating the treaty to the Senate, and the senator
from Delaware has read that message and incorporated it into his
speech.  He therefore knew that fact when he gave as a reason for
withholding the Hise treaty, that it was made without authority.
The treaty of peace with Mexico, to the provisions of which the
senator has also referred on another point, was entered into by Mr
Trist, not only without authority, but in bold defiance of the instruc.
tions of our government to the contrary. The administration of
President Polk did not feel at liberty to withhold these two treaties
from the Senate, merely because they were made without authority
or in defiance of instructions, for the reason that the objects intended
to be accomplished by the treaty were desirable, and the provisions
could be so modified by'the Senate as to make the details conform to
the objects in view. It may not be amiss for me to remind the
senator from Delaware, that he was a member of the Senate at the
time the Mexican treaty was submitted for ratification, and that he
voted for it, notwithstanding it was concluded in opposition to the
instructions of our government.  If; therefore, the senator has any
respect for the practice of the government heretofore, or for his own
votes recorded upon the very point in controversy, he is not at liberty
to object to the treaty upon the ground that it was concluded by our
diplomatic agent without authority.
I understand the rule to be this: whenever the treaty is made in
pursuance of instructions, the Executive is under an implied obligat,ion to submit it to the Senate fol ratification. But if it be entered 
STEPHEN  A. DOUGLAS.
ato without authority, or in violation of instructions, the administration are at liberty to reject it unconditionally, or to send it to
the Senate for advice, amendment, ratification, or rejection, according
to their judgment of its merits. Whether the Hise treaty was perfect in all its provisions, or contained obnoxious features, is not the
question. It furnished conclusive evidence that the government of
Nicaragua was willing and anxious to confer upon the United States
the exclusive and perpetual privilege of controlling the canal between
the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, instead of a partnership between us
and the European powers. The senator from Delaware (then secretary of state) had the opportunity of securing to his own country
that inestimable privilege, either by submitting the l:ise treaty to
the Senate, with the recommendation that it be so modified as to
obviate all the objections which he deemed to exist to some of its
provisions, or by making a new treaty which should embrace the
principle of an exclusive and perpetual privilege without any of the
obnoxious provisions. He did not do either. He suppressed the
treaty-refused to accept of an exclusive privilege to his own
country- and caused a new treaty to be made, which should lay the
foundation of a partnership between the United States and Great
Britain and the other European powers.
The next reason assigned for withholding the Hise treaty from the
Senate is that it had not been approved by Nicaragua.  It is true
that Nicaragua did not ratify that treaty; but why did she fail to do
so? I showed conclusively in the speech to which the senator was
replying that the non-approval was in consequence of his instructions,
as secretary of state, to Mr. Squier, our charg6 d'affaires to Nicaragua.
It required the whole influence of the representative of our government in that country to prevent the ratification and approval of the
Hise treaty by the state of Nicaragua. Sir, it is not a satisfactory
reason for suppressing the treaty, therefore, that it had not been
ratified by the other party, when the non-ratification was produced
by the action of the agent of this government in pursuance of instructions.
MR. CLAYTOI.-I desire distinctly to understand the senator.  If
I understood him, he said that Mr. Hise's treaty was rejected in
consequence of Mr. Squier's interference.
MR. DOUGLAs.-Yes. sir.
MR. CLAYTON.-And then I understand him to say that Mr. Squier
did it by instruction.
MR.. D)OUGLAS.-Yes, sir.
Mr. CLAYTONI.-Now  will the senator submit the truth to substantiate that assertion? I know of no such instruction.
MR. DOUGLAS.-I will do that with a great deal of pleasure.  Mr.
Hise was sent to the Central American States by Mr. Polk. He
negotiated a treaty with the state of Nicaragua-the treaty il.
question-on the 21st of June, 1849. Prior to that time he had
beea recalled, and Mr. Squier had been appointed by the administra
83 
84    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES -0
tion which succeeded that of President Polk. Mr. Ilise had re.
coived no knowledge of his remova!; no instructions from the niew
administration at the time when he made the treaty. In the instructions which the secretary of state gave to Mr. Squier on the
2d of May, 1849, when he was about to proceed to Central America
to supersede Mr. iise, you will find that he was directed to "claim
no peculiar privilege; no exclusive right; no monopoly of conmmercial intercourse" for the United States.  I will read fromn the
letter of?nstructions:
"We should. naturally be proud of such an achievement as an Ameiican
work; but if European aid be necessary to accomplish it, why should we repudiate it, seeing that our object is as honest as it is openly avowed, to claim
no peculiar privilege; no exclusive right; no monopoly of commercial inter.
course, but to see that the work is dedicated to the benefit of mankind. to be
used by all on the same terms with us, and consecrated to the enjoyment and
diffusion of the unnumbered and inestimable blessings which must flow from it
to all the civilized world!"
Then, sir, after having instructed Mr. Squier as to the character
of the treaty which he was to form-a treaty which was to open the
canal to the world-a treaty which was to give us no peculiar
privilege, and secure to us no exclusive right-after giving that instruction, the secretary, in the concluding paragraph, says:
"If a charter or grant of the right of way shall have been incautiously ox
inconsiderately made before your arrival in that country, seek to have it
properly modified to answer the ends we have in view."
MR. CLAYToN.-Is that the passage?
MR. DOUGLAS.-That and the other together.
MR. CLAYTON.-I endeavored to correct the misapprehension of
the honorable senator yesterday in reference to that. That is not
an instruction to the minister to Central America in regard to the
treaty made by Mr. Hise, or any other treaty. It is a direction to
the minister to Central America to see that any contract which had
been made by the local government should be so made as not to be
assignable. If the gentleman will read the context, he will see at
once that that does not allude to a treaty.  It is merely, I say again,
an instruction to the minister in that country to look to it, that the
capitalists who were about to construct the canal should not speceulate upon the work. There is nothing there touching a treaty;
nothing whatever. The gentleman is entirely mistaken. The whole
construction is in reference to the character of the contract o
charter.
MR. DOUGLAS.-I will read the preceding sentence, and we will see
then who is mistaken:
"If they do not agree to grant us passage on reasonable and proper terms,,
r efuse our protection anl our countenance to procure the contract fiora
Nicaragua " 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
MR. CLAYTON.-If the gentleman will look at the context which
goes before, he will see that the word " they " refers to the capitalists.
MR. DOUGLAS.-I will read what goes before:
S4 ee that it is not assignable to others; that no exclusive privileges are
granted to any nation that will not agree to the same treaty stipulations with
Nicaragua; that the tolls to be demanded by the owners are not unreasonable
or oppressive; that no power,be reserved to the proprietors of the canal or
their suosessors to extort at any time hereafter, or unjustly to obstruct or
embarrass the right of passage. This will require all your vigilance and skill.
If they do not agree to grant us passage on reasonable and proper terms, reuse our protection and our countenance to procure the contract from
Nicaragua.  If a charter or grant of the right of way shall have been incauSously or inconsiderately made before your arrival in thatscountry, seek to
ave it properly modified to answer the erds we have in view."
MR. CLAYTON.-The honorable senator will observe that that does
lot refer to a treaty.  The grant of the right of way was a different
sing.  It was  a contract between the'.,cai government and the
-capitalists.  Not a treaty at all.
MR. DOUGLAS.-The senator's explanation is doubtless satisfactory
to himself. He may imagine that it will suit his present purposes to
place upon his instructions the construction for which he now contends; but it is wholly unwarranted by the language he employed.
His instructions speak of securing the right otf way to "us."  To
whom did he allude in the word "us?" Did he refer to the
capitalists, proprietors and' speculators, who should become the
owners of the charter? Was he cne of the company, and therefore
authorized to use the word "us," when speaking of the rights and
)rivileges to be acquired of a foreign nation through his agency as
secretary of state? I have supposed that Mr. Squier was sent to
Central America to represent the United States, and to protect our
rights and interests as a nation. I have always done the senator
from Delaware the justice to believe that when he gave those instructions to Mr. Squier he was acting on behalf of his country to
secure the right of way fgr a canal to the United States and not to a
few capitalists and speculators under the title of "us."  For the
honor of our country I will still do him that justice, notwithstanding
his disclaimer. His instructions also speak of the right of way to
"nations," and caution Mr. Squicr to see that "no exclusive privileges are granted to any nation," etc.
It is plain, therefore, that in the instructions relating to the securing the right of way for a canal to the nations of the earth, Mr.
Squier was directed to see that no exclusive privilege was granted
to any other nation, and not to claim any peculiar advantages for
our own. Then follows the concluding paragraph, which has been
read:
" If a charter or grant of the rights of way shall have been incautiously or in
considerately made before your arrival in the country, seek to have it properly
modified to answer the ends we have in view."
Modified how?  If before the arrival of Mr. Squier in the country
17
3b 
88s    THE LIFE AND SPEE'OHES OF
Mr. Hise shall have acquired a charter or grant which. st tll secure
peculiar privileges or exclusive rights for this country, le was to
seek to have it so modified as to open the same rights and privileges
to all other nations on equal terms. This is what I understand to
be the meaning of those instructions, and it is clear that Mr. Squier
understood them in the same way; for when he arrived in Nicaragua,
and discovered, by a statement in a newspaper of the Isthmus, that
Mr. Hise was about making a treaty for a canal, without knowing
what its terms were, without waiting to ascertain its provisions, he
sent at once a notice to tle government of Nicaragua, that Mr. Hlise
was not authorized to treat-that he did not understand the policy
and views of the new administration-that he had been recalled,
and that any treats he might make must be considered and treated
as an unofficial act. Hlie communicated this protest to the secretary
of state on the same day, and then proceeded to his point of destination, where he made a treaty for the right of way for a canal to all
nations on the partnership plan in pursuance of his instructions.
These two treaties-the Hise treaty and the Squier treaty —were in
the Department of State at the same time-the one having arrived
about the middle of September, and the other about the first of
October. It then became the duty of the senator from Delaware, as
secretary of state, to decide between them: in other words, to determine whether he would accept of an exclusive privilege to his
own country, or enter into partnership with the monarchies of
Europe.  He did determine that question, anid his decision was in
favor of the partnership, and against his own country having the
exclusive control of the canal.
Then, sir, I think I was authorized to say'what I did say, that the
non-ratification of Hise treaty by the government of Nicaragua was
procured by the agent of. General Taylor's administration in that
country, and that the agent acted under the authority of this governmenrt.  He certainly acted in obedience to what he understood
to be his instruction, and that is, the instruction, that if such a chlear
ter had been incautiously granted, to seek to have it modified to conform to the ends had in view, as stated in the instruction.
MR. CLAYTON.-Will the senator allow me to interrupt him?  It
is not a very material point, still it is better to have it right than
wrong. If the senator will only read the last paragraph, he will see
that the charter or grant of the right of way which Mr. Squier was
instructed to see was not incautiously made, was a very different
thing, indeed, from the treaty; and he will see that that is the thing
which I directed the minister to look to, as I stated, and endeavored
to be understood yesterday, and as I was anxious to be understood
by the gentleman on this point-what I instructed the minister to
look to was that the contract of these capitalists should not be such
as would enable them to extort from persons using the canal. The
last sentence of the instruction applies, if he will look, at it excl-'
sively to the case of the contract, anud not to that if the treaty. 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
One remark more: How is it possible for the gentleman to recon cile the fact, that the State Department could know or imagine that
Mr. Hise had made a treaty on the 2d of May, 1850, when those in structions were given, when, in point of fact, Mr. Hise was not
heard from until June afterward?  How coutld I imagine any such
thing? And again: how could I possibly suppose that M]r. Hise
had made a treaty, or was going to make a treaty, when the records
of the State Department showed me the instructions given to him
by Mr. Buchanan, in which he tells Mr. Hise to make no treaty
whatever with Nicaragua?  If the gentleman can reconcile these
things, I should be happy to hear him.
MR. DOUGLAS.-I will have less difficulty in reconciling these things
with my views of his instructions than he will with his construction
of them.  I have already shown that the instructions related to the
right of way to nations and not to individuals; that they were in
favor of equal rights to all nations, and opposed to any peculiar privileges to our own country. Is it not as reasonable to suppose that
the instructions meant what they said, as it is to conceive that our
minister was directed to procure the modification of contracts previously entered into with individuals, and for the observance of
which Nicaragua was supposed to have pledged her faith as a nation?
Was our minister sent there to represent individuals in their schemes
of procuring charters and contracts on private account, or to interfere with and prevent the faithful observance of such contracts as
that government might previously have made with our own citizens
or others?  While this supposition might extricate the senator from
his present difficulty on this point, it would not tend to elevate the
character of our diplomacy during his administration of the State
Department. I think I do the senator more justice by the construction I have put upon his conduct than he does by his own explanation.
But, sir, I wish to know whether I understand the senator now?
Does he wish now to be understood as saying that he preferred an
exclusive privilege to his own country to a partnership with EnLgland?
MR. CLAYTON.-No, sir.
MR. DOUGLAS.-Ah! then as he did not prefer the exclusive privilege to a partnership with the European powers, does he wish the
senate to understand that he did not mean to convey his true idea
min his instructions? If he preferred the partnership to the exclusive
privilege, was it not his duty to make known  that wish in his instructions? Why should he complain when I show that by his instructions he said precisely what he now avows to be his policy
upon that subject? Why, sir, I am defending the consistency of his
own opinions, according to his present views, by showing that his
instructions embraced what he says now was his true policy-in
favor of a partnership with other nations, instead of an exclusive
privilege to our own country.
37 
38     THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
But, sir, whatever may have been his meaning in those instliie
tions, it is undeniable that Mr. Squier understood them as I now do,
and acted upon them accordingly.  Ience, as I have already re
mal ked, before he arrived upon the theatre of his operations, and
upon the mere authority of a newspaper paragraph, that MAr. Hise
was about making such a treaty, he sent ahead a messenger to inform the government of Nicaragua that Mr. Hise had no authority to treat upon the subject-that he had been recalled-that he
was not informed of the views and purposes of the new administration-and that whatever treaty he made must be regarded and
treated as an unofficial act —and requesting that "' new negotiations
may be entered upon at the seat of government."
The new negotiations were immediately opened accordingly, and
on the 3d of September terminated in a treaty, which was a substitute for that which MIr. Hise had previously made. I do not understand that the Hise treaty was formally rejected or disavowedl by
the government of Nicaragua. It was treated as an unofficial acta mere nullity-upon the authority of,Mr. Squier's protest.  I again
submit the question to the Senate, therefore, whether I am not fully
justified in the statement that the non-approval of the Hise treaty
by the government of Nicaragua was in consequence of the action
of the agent of this government in that country, under the instructions of the senator from Delaware as secretary of state    I am
only surprised that he should attempt to avoid the responsibility of
the act, since, when hard pressed in this discussion, he has been
driven into the admission that he preferred a partnership with the
monarchies of the Old World to an exclusive privilege for his own
country.  If such were his opinions and preferences, he was bound
by every consideration of duty and patriotism to have'given the instructions, and produced the result which I have attributed to him.
Why not avow that which he now acknowledges to have been his
purpose, in obedience to what he conceived to be his duty? I only
ask him to assume the responsibility and consequences of his own
conduct, and then to assign such reasons as he may be able in justification.
The next reason which he gives for suppressing the Rise treaty is
totally inconsistent with the first.  He alleges that the clause guar anteeing the independence of Nicaragua was wholly inadiaissible, and
could never receive his sanction.  In a report whi(,h was comnmuni cated to the House of Representatives in 1850, he assigned thie same
reason, and stated that such a guaranty was a departure from our
uniform policy, and had no precedent in our history except in the one
case of the French colonies in America.
Of course courtesy requires me to acknowledge that the senatcr
really believes that this was one of the reasons which induced him
to withhold the Hise treaty from the Senate.  I must be permitted,
however, to inform him that hlie is entirely mistaken: that the clause
In question did not constitute an objection in his mind at that time 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
that it Is an afterthought which he has since seized- hold of to justify
an act which he had previ(usly performed upon totally different
grounds. The evidence of these facts will be found recorded in a
dispatch written by the senator from Delaware, as secretary of state,
on the 20th of October, 1849, to Mr. Lawrence, our minister to England. The document containing this dispatch was printed and laid
upon our tables a few days since, and is entitled Senate Ex. Doc. No.
27.  It will be rememnbered that the HIise treaty was communicated
to the Department of State on the 15th of September, and the S(luiec
treaty about the first of October of the same year. On tlie 20th of
October, Mr. Clayton (in the dispatch to which I refer), discussed ouc
relations with the Central American states at great length-anlong
other things communicated to Mr. Lawrence the substance of thles
two treaties- and directed him to make the same known to Lord
Palmerston.  I read from the dispatch:
"If, however, the British government shall reject these overtures on our part,
and shall refuse to cooperate with us in the generous and philanthropic scheme
of rendering the interoceanic communication by the way of the port and riveL
San Juan free to all nations upon the same terms, we shall deem ourselves jug
tified in protecting our interests independently of her aid, and despite her op.
position or hostility. With a view to this alternative, we have a treaty wit w
the state of Nicaragua, a copy of which has been sent to you, and the stipul,,tions of which you should unreservedly impart to Lord Palmerston. You w 11
inform him, however, that this treaty was concluded without a power or il~
struction from this government;  that the President had no knowledge of t 
existence, of the intention to form it, until it was presented to hlm by Mr.
Hise, our late charge d'affaires to Guatemala, about the 1st of September la. t;
and that, consequently we are-not bound to ratify it, and will take no step Lbr
that purpose, if we can, by arrangements with the British goveynIrrent, p]) ce
our interests upon a just and satisfactory foundation.  But, if our effort for',his
end should be abortive, the President will not hesitate to sutprit this or s )me
other treaty which may be concluded by the present charge d'atfaires to'3uatemala, to the Senate of the United States for their advice lid consent, wlth a
view to its ratification; and if that enlightened body should approve it, h. also
will give it his hearty sanction, and will exert all his ccrstitutional power to
execute its provisions in good faith-a determination is which he may 4onfidently count upon the good will of the people of the U'ited States."
Here we find the true reason assigned for withholding the Hise
treaty from the Senate.  It was to induce Great Britain to enter into
partnership with us.  Lord Palmerston is inicrmed that if Great Britain refuses our offer of a partnership, that "we shall deem ourselves
justified in protecting our interests independently of lier aid, and in
despite of her opposition or hostility," and that "with a view to this
alternative," he held the Hise treaty in reserve, to be submitted to
the Senate for ratification or not, dependent upon the decision of
Great Britain in relation to the partnership. This is the only reason
assigned for withholding the treaty fromn the Senate. The pretext
that it was made without authority is expressly negatived by the
threat to accept the exclusive privilege, in the event that England
refuses to enter into the partnership. Not a word of objectign that
39 
40     THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
it guarantees the independence of Nicaragua!  But the testiinoiiy
does not stop here.  This same dispatch furnishes affirmative evidence-conclusive and undeniable-that the "guaranty" con,stitated
no portion of his objection to the Hise treaty-was not deemed objectionable by him at that timne-but, on the contrary, was looked
upon with favor, and actually proposed by Mr. Clayton ]himself as a
desirab,:e provision which might be incorporated into a treaty.for the
protection of the canal! I read from the same dispatch:
"You may suggest, for instance, that the United States and Great Britai
should enter into a treaty guaranteeing the independence of Nicaragua, Honduras and Costa Rica, which treaty may also guarantee tQ British subjects the
privileges acquired in those States by the treaties between Great Britain and
Spain, provided that the limits of those States on the east be acknowledged to
be the Carribean Sea."
Now, sir, let me ask the senator from Delaware what becomes of
his pretext that he deemed the guaranty of the independence of
Nicaragua an insuperable objection to the Hiise treaty?  Have I not
proven by his own dispatches, written at the time, that such an idea
could never have entered his brain when he determined to withhold
the treaty from the Senate?- that it was an afterthought upon which
he has since seized as an excuse for an act which had been previously
done with a view to another object, and for different reasons?
I will now proceed to consider the fourth objection made by the
senator to the Hise treaty. He goes on to criticise its various provisions, denounces them as ridiculous, as absurd, as unconstitutional,
and he puts the question with an air of triumph whether there was
a man in this body who would have voted for all the provisions of
that treaty. Sir, I have no fancy for that species of special, pleading
which attempts to avoid the real issue by a criticism upon mere
details which are subject to modification at pleasure. Does not the
senator know that when a treaty is made, the objects of which are
desirable, while the details are inadmnissible, the practice has been
to send it to the Senate, that the object may be secured and the
details so modified as to conform to the ends in view? Whoever
supposed before that a treaty, desirable in its leading features, was to
be rejected by the department, merely because there was an obnoxious provision in it? I could turn upon the senator with an air of
as much triumph, if I had practised it as well, and ask him if there
was a man in this body who would have voted for the Mexican
treaty of peace as it was sent to us by the Executive?  Do we not
all know that the treaty which was ratified by about four-fifths of
the Senate came to us in a shape in which it could not receive one
solitary vote upon either side of the chamber?  Do we not know
that My. Polk in his message communicating the treaty intimated
that fact, and call'ed the attention of the Senate to the obnoxious
rovisions?  While it contained provisions which would exclude the
resident from the possibility of ever ratifying it, which would have 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
prevented every senator from giving his sanction to it, yet irasmucb
as the main objects of the treaty met the approval of the Presiden,~
and it was only matters of detail that were obnoxious and inadmis
sible, he sent it to the Senate that its details might be made to bar
monize with its objects. Sir, the vote to strike out the obnoxious
features in the treaty was unanimous.  Not one man in the body, not
even the senator from Delaware, dared to affirm those clauses or vote
to keep them in the treaty. Having perfected it so as to suit the
views of about four-fifths of the Senate, it was ratified with the vote
t, the senator recorded in the affirmative, according to my recollection.
If, therefore, the senator from Delaware had followed the practice
which he sanctioned by his own vote in the case of the Mexicaa
treaty, he would have sent the Hise treaty to the Senate for amendment and ratification, even if the details had been obnoxious to all
the objections he now urges to them. For this reason I do not deemn
it necessary to occupy the time of the Senate in reply to his objections relative to making a canal outside the limits of the United
States, or the creation of a company either by Congress or the Pr3sident for that purpose. I care not whether these provisions were
admissible or inadmissible.  It is not material to the argument.  It
can have no bearing upon the question. The Hise treaty was evidence of one great fact, which should never be forgotten, and that
fact is, that Nicaragua was willing and anxious to grant the United
States forever the exclusive right and control over a ship canal
between  the two oceans.   The secretary of state (Mr. Clayton),
knew that fact. If the details were not acceptable to him, lie could
have availed himself of the main provisions and made the details to
suit himself; I confine myself therefore to the great point that you
might have had the exclusive privilege if you had desired it. You
refused it with your eyes open, and took a partnership in lieu of it.
All about the details is a matter of moonshine. You could have
modified them to suit yourself before sending the treaty to the
Senate, or you could have followed the example of Mr. Polk, in the
case of the Mexican treaty, and sent it to the Senate with the recommendation that the details be thus modified.
All this talk about obnoxious features and objectionabl)le provisions
-about guarantees of independence and want of authority to make
the treaty-must be regarded as miserable attempts to avoid the
main point at issue. Why this pitiful equivocation, if the senatorwas really in favor of the European partnership in prefere' ice to the
exclusive privilege for the United States, as all his acts prove-the
whole tenor of his correspondence clearly and conclusively provewas the case? If he thinks his policy was right, why not frankly
avow the truth, and justify upon the merits? I am not to be diverted
from my purpose by his assaults upon the administration of Presi
dent Polk, nor by his array of great names in opposition to the view.
I entertain. History will do justice to Mr. Polk and Mr. Buohamm
41 
42     THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
upon this as well as all other questions connected with their administration of the government In the speech to which the senator
professed to reply, I did not make an allusion to party'politics.  I do
not think the term Whig or Democrat can be found in the whole
speech. I am sure that it does not contain a partisan reference to
the state of political parties in the country during the period to
which my remarks applied.  I attempted to discuss the questlon
upon its merits, independent of the fact whether my views might come
in conflict with those professed by either of the great parties, or
entertained by the great men of our country at some former period.
I should have been better satisfied if the senator had pursued the
same course, instead of calling upon Jackson, Polk and Buchanan,
and sheltering himself behind their great names, while attempting to
detract from their fame by representing them as having sacrificed the
interests and honor. of their country.
MR. CLAYTON.-I deny it. There was not one word in my speech
which went to arraign Mr. Polk or General Jackson, or anybody.
There was nothing like a party spirit in this speech.  If the gentleman so understood me, he entirely misunderstood me. I stated the
fact that Mr. Polk and Mr. Buchanan had been applied to by the
local government of Nicaragua for the intervention of this government to protect it from the aggressions of the British. 1 stated, and
proved the fact, that the Monroe doctrine had never been carried
out-that Mr. Polk on that occasion had declined to interfere; but
I disclaim entirely assailing him, and endeavor to reconcile his whole
course of conduct as being consistent with what he stated in the
House of Representatives on the Panama mission.
MR. DOUGLAS.-I accept the explanation. It is perfectly satisfactory, but I am very unfortunate in apprehending the meaning of
language. He said that Mr. Polk had avowed himself in favor of
asserting the Monroe doctrine. He then said that Mr. Polk had
abandoned and refused to carry it out when this question arose. He
said the President of Nicaragua, to use his own language, "'oked
that declaration into Mr. Polk's own teeth."
Me. CLAYTON.-I used no such word.
MiR. DoUGLAs.-At least, that he thrust it into his teeth.
MlR. CLAYTON.-I did not.
MIR. DOUGLAS.-Well, never mind about the precise word.  At all
events, he went on to show that Mr. Polk was pledged to the Monroe doctrine, that he failed to carry it out, that no administration
ever carried it out, that it had been abandoned whenever a question
arose which gave an opportunity for carrying it into effect.  When
he chose to put Mr. Polk into the position of making declarations
and violating them, making protests and abandoning them, making
threats and never executing theim, I very naturally supposed, accord
ing to the notion of a western man, that he was attacking him.
(Laughter.)
MR. CLAYToN.-I endeavor to show that Mr. Polk had made his 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
iecommendation to the Congress of the United States that he was
perfectly justifiable in not considering that as the established doctrine of the country, because the Congress of the United States had
never adopted it. On that principle I endeavor to reconcile the
course of Mr. Polk with itself.  The gentleman has undertaken to
represent me as assailing Mr. Polk, when if he had paid attention to
what I said-unfortunately he was out during the greater portion of
the time I was discussing the subject-he would have seefi that I was
endeavoring to prove that the course of that President of the United
States, in this particular, was made liable to the exception which is
taken to it; that he was not bound by the declaration of the Monroe
doctrine unless Congress adopted it, because he was not the government.
MIR. DOIJGLAS.-Of course I accept the explanation of the senator
with a great deal of pleasure, and I am gratified to know that I
misapprehend him; but it really did appear to me that I was
justified in putting that construction upon what he said, inasmuch
as he went on to show that when he came info the State Department,
he found Great Britain with her protectorate over the Mosquito
coast, and spreading over more than half of Central America-that
during Mr. Polk's administration, and while he was negotiating the
treaty of peace with Mexico, Great Britain seized the town of San
Juan, at the mouth of the proposed canal, and that Mr. Polk and Mr.
Buchanan remained silent, without even a protest against this unjustifiable aggression; and when he denounced that seizure as an act
originating in hostility to this country, to cut off communication
with our Pacific possessions; and when he said that it would have
been wiser to have closed the door and shut out the British lion, that
to allow him to enter unresisted, and then attempt to expel him;
and when he boasted of having expelled the British lion after Mr.
Polk and Mr. Buchanan had permitted him to enter the house in
contempt of their declaration of the Monroe doctrine, I really thought
that he was attempting to censure Mr. Polk for letting the lion come in;
but it seems I was mistaken. He did not mean that, and not meaning
it, upon my word I do not know what he did mean. (Laughter.)
When I heard all this, and much more of the same tenor, it occurred to me that it amounted to a pretty good arraignment of Mr.
Polk and his administration; and that his object was to glorify himself and General Taylor, at the expense of Mr. Buchanan and Mr.
Polk, by accusing the latter of having tamely submitted to British
aggressions of great enormity, which the former promptly rebuked
by expelling the British from Central America.  Let me ask him the
question-did the Clayton and Bulwer treaty expel the British from
Central America? Has England abandoned her protectorate? What
power has she surrendered? What functionary has she recalled?
What portion of the country-what inch of territory has she given
up? Will the senator from Delaware inform me what England has
abandoned in pursuance or by virtue of the Clayton and Bulweet
43 
44     THE LIFE AND SPEECHES8 OF
treaty?  I can show him  where she has extended her possessionf
since the date of that treaty, and in cot tempt of its stipulations.  I
can point him to the seizure of the Bay Islands and the erection of
them  into a colony-to the extension of her jurisdiction in the
vicinity of the Balize-to her invasion of the Territory of Honduras
on the main land-and to the continuance of her protectorate over
the Mosquito coast. I can point him to a series of acts designed by
Great Britain to increase her power and extend her possessions in
that quarter. Will he point me to any one act by which she has re duced her power or curtailed her possessions?  Hle boasts of having
expelled the British from Central America.   Will he have the kind ness to inform the Senate how, when, and where this has been
effected? Where is the evidence to sustain this declaration? I called
for information on this point in my speech the other day. The
senator replied to all other parts of that speech in detail and at great
length. Of course, want of time was the reason for his omission to
respond to these pertinent inquiries.  (Laughter.)
MNR. CLAYTON. -No, sir; I replied to it, but the senator was ou
oit his seat.
MR. DOUGLAS.-I was in my seat the most of the time the senator
was speaking on that part of the subject, but unfortunately I heard
no response to this interrogatory. Now, sir, in regard to this Bay
Island colony, I may be permitted to say, although it is by the way
of digression from the line of argument which I was marking out for
myself, that it presents a clear case not only in derogation of the
Monroe doctrine, but in direct violation and contempt of the Clayton
and Bulwer treaty.  I will do the senator the justice to say, that the
Bay Island colony has not been erected in pursuance of the treaty,
but in derogation of its provisions. The question arises, are we
going to submit tamely to the establishment of this new colony? If
we acquiesce in it we submit to a double wrong-a contravention of
our avowed policy in regard to European colonization on this continent; and a palpable and open violation of the terms and stipulatioiin
of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. If we tamely submit to this twofold wrong, the less we say henceforth in regard to European coloaization on the American continent, the better for our own credit.
Here is a case where we must act promptly if we ever intend to
act. I do not wish to make an issue with England about the Balize
-she has been in possession there longer than our nation has existed
as  an independent republic.  I do not wish to make an issue with
her in regard to Jamaica, because she cannot surrender it upon our
demnand without dishonor, and she is bound to fight if driven to an
extremity on that point. I do not want to make an issue with
her in reference to any colony she has upon the continent or adjacent
to it, where she may  be said to have had a long and  )eaceful
possession. Sir, if I was going to make the issue on any one of
these points, I would pursue a more mianly course by declaring war
&t once instead of resorting to such an expedient.  I would makr tL:, 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
issue solely and distinctly on the Bay Island colony, for the reason
that there she is clearly in the wrong, the act having been done in
violation of her plighlited faith. It was done in contempt of our
avowed policy. She cannot justify it before the civilized world, and
t1/erefore, dare not fight upon such an issue. England will fight us
when her honor compels her to do it, and she will fight us for nc
(ttlier cause. We can require Great Britain to discontinue the Bay
Island colony, and I call upon the friends of the Clayton-Bulwe!
treaty, whose provisions are outraged by that act, to join in the deimand that that colony be discontinued. Upon that point we are in
the right: England is in the wrong;  and she cannot, she dare not
fight upon it.  And, sir, when England backs out of one colony upon
our remonstrance, it will be a long time before she will establish
another upon this continent without consulting us. And, sir, when
England shall have refrained from interfering in the affairs of the
American continent without consulting the wishes of this government, what other power on earth will be willing to stand forward
and do that which England concedes it prudent not to attempt? I may
be permitted to say, therefore, that the only issue that I desire to see
at this time, upon our foreign relations, as they are now presented to
me, is upon the Bay Island colony: and let us require that that be
discontinued, and that the terms of our treaty stipulations be obeyed
and fulfilled.  When that issue shall have been made and decided in
our favor, we will not have much need for general resolutions about
the Monroe doctrine in future.
But, sir, this was a digression. The point that I was discussing
was this: that while it has been a matter of boast for years that the
Clayton and Bulwer treaty drove Great Britain out of CentralAmerica, she has not surrendered an inch; and what is more, she is
now proposing negotiations with us with a view to new arrangements, by which she shall hereafter give up her protectorate. Yes, sir,
your late secretary of state and President, Everett and Fillmore, have
comnImunicated to Congress the fact that the British minister was proposing new negotiations, new arrangements, by which Great Britain
shall hereafter give up that which the senator makes it a matter of
boast that he had secured by his treaty. That is a little curious. I
do not understand this self-gratulation of having accomplished a great
and wonderful object, by the expelling of the British lion from the
place where Mir. Polk allowed him to come and abide, and still a new
negotiation or a new arrangement is deemed necessary to secure that
which the senator from Delaware boasts of having accomplished long
since!
England professes to be desirous of surrendering her protectorate.
Then, why does she not do it? The British minister proposes to
open negotiations by which England shall withdraw her authority
from Central America, and the late secretary of state (Mr. Everett)
entertains the proposition favorably, while the senator from D)elawaro
congratulates the country upon his having effected the desired end
in his treaty three years ago.
45 
16      THeE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
If Messrs. Everett and Fillmore were correct in entertaining Mfr.
Crampton's propos;tion for a new arrangement, certainly the senator
from Delaware is at fault in saying that his treaty expelled the Brit ish from Central America. My opinion as to whether it did expel
them or not, is a matter of not much consequence.  I have always
thought the language of the treaty was so equivocal, that no man
could say with certainty, whether it did abolish the protectorate or
not. One clause seemed to abolish it;, another seemed to recognize
its existence, and to restrain its exercise; and you could make as
good an argument on one side as the other. But I gave notice at
the time the treaty was ratified, that I would take the6Amrerican side,
and stand by the senator from Delaware in claiming that England
was bound to quit; but our late secretary of state and the President,
Everett and Fillmore, think otherwise; and now it becomes a
question whether new negotiations to accomplish that very desirable
object are necessary or not?
Mr. President, I return to the point which I was discussing when
the senator interrupted me, and led me off in this digression, to wit.
That the simple question presented in this matter, when stripped of
all extraneous circumstances, was this: Should we have accepted,
when tendered, an exclusive right of way forever, from one ocean to
the other? The senator from Delaware thought not, and the admininistration of General Taylor sustained him in his view of the question.
I thought we ought to have embraced the offer which tendered us
the exclusive control forever over this great interoceanic canal.
The senator attempts to sustain his position by quoting  the
authority of General Jackson and MIr. Polk. Sir, he is unfortunate
in his quotat.ion.  I do not think that, fairly considered, he has any
such authority. I am aware that in 1835 that senator ofiered a
resolution in this body, which was adopted, recommending a negotiation to open the Isthmus to all nations, and that General Jackson
sent out Colonel Biddle to collect and report information on the
subject; bet when the resolution was adopted, the question was then
presented under circumstances very different from those which
existed wl en the senator suppressed the Hise treaty. At thlat time
the Central American States had granted to the Netherlands the
privilege of making a canal. Others had already secured the privi ege, sad in that point of view it was reasonable to suppose that the
most we could do was to get an equal privilege with European
nations. That was not the case presented when the exclusive privilege was offered to us and the offer declined by the senator from
Delaware without consulting the Senate.
But there is no evidence that General Jackson ever entertained
the opinions attributed to him.  Colonel Biddie, who was appointed
by General Jackson to explore the routes and collect and report
information, availed himself of his official po"s"t-in to obtain an
exclusive privilege to himself and his associates on private account.
When the existence of this private contract came to the knowledge
of the secretary of state, Mr. Forsyth, he reprimanded our charge6 at 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
Nsw Granada, for having given any countenance to it.  And why?
Not because it contained an exclusive privilege to the United States,
for it did not give us any privilege.  Mr. Biddle had been sent out
there to get information to be laid before the administration. He
had no power to negotiate-no authority to open diplomatic relations. He had no power to take any one step in procuring the priviege.  He made use of his official position, and, in the opinion of the
administration, abused it, by securing a private grant to himself,
without the authority, protection, or sanction of the government of
his own count ry.
Mr. Forsyth was indignant because his agent had disobeyed his
authority, and turned the public employment into a private speculation. That is not the question presented here. That contract did
not give the United States the privilege at all.  It gave it to
Colonel Biddle and his associates. But I find nothing in that transaction, and in all the public documents relating to it, to show that
General Jackson would have refused the exclusive privilege to his
own country if it had been tendered to him.
How is it, then, with Mr. Polk? According to my recollection
of the facts, New Granada had granted the privilege of making a
canal to a Frenchman by the name of Du Quesne-I will not be certain of his name-and it was desirable to get permission to carry the
mails across there. The grant had passed into the possession ()f a
citizen of a foreign power, and the most that our government could
ask, was to be put upon an equal footing with that other power. It
did not present the question of the privilege being tendered to us,
and we refusing to accept it.
But I shall take no timle in going into a vindication of those ad ministrations. In the remarks that I made the other day, I chose to
vindicate my own course without reference to past administrations
or present party associations, and I will pursue the same line of de bate now.  One word upon the point, made by the senator, that the
Hise treaty was unconstitutional.   Was  it not constitutional to
accept the exclusive privilege to the United States? If it was not,
and his constitutional objection is valid, it goes a little too far. If
you had no right to accept an exclusive privilege to us under the
Constitution, what right had you to take a partnership privilege in
cominpany with Great Britain?   If you had no right to take the
privilege for the benefit of American citizens alone, what right had
you to take one for the benefit of Englishmen and Americans jointly?
If you have no right to make a treaty by which you will protect an
&merican company in making that canal, what right had you to
Bnake a treaty by which you pledged yourselves to protect a British
company in making the same work? I choose to put the senator
apon the defensive, and let him demonstrate his right to do this
thing jointly with England, and then I will draw from his argument
my right to do it for the benefit of America alone. I choose to put
him in the position of demonstrating the existence of the constitu
47 
48     THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
tional power. Hie, in his treaty, exercised the power. I have nct.
And he, laving exercised it, having pledged the faith of the nlation
to do the act, I have a right to call upon him to show the authority,
under the Constitution of the United States, to make a guaranity
jointly with England for the benefit of English subjects as well a
American citizens; and when he proves the existence of that power,
he has proved the right of the government to do the same thing fol
the benefit of America and American citizens, omitting England ane
British subjects.
Sir, as I before said, I have no fondness for this special pleading
about the peculiar provisions of a treaty, when the real point wi.s
the extent of the privilege which we should accept. Now, sir, I
was in favor of an exclusive privilege, and I will tell you why. I
desired to see a canal made; and when made, I desired to see it
under the control of a power enabled to protect it. I desired to see it
open to the commerce of the whole world, under our protection upon
proper terms. How was that to be done, except by an exclusive
privilege to ourselves? Then, let us open it to the commnierce of
the world on such terms and conditions as we should deem wise, just
and politic. Could we not do this as well by our volition as England
could in conjunction with us?  Would it not be as creditable to nu
as a nation to have acquired it ourselves, and then opened it freely,
as to have gone into a partnership by which we should have no con trol in prescribing the terms upon which it should be opened?  And
besides, if the grant had been made to us, and we had accepted it,
and then thrown it open to the commerce of all nations on our own
terms and conditions, we held in our hands a right which would have
been ample security for every nation under heaven to keep the peace
with the United States.  The moment England abused the privilege
by seizing any niore islands, by establishing any more colonies, by
invading any more rights, or by violating any more treaties, we
would use our privileges, shut up the canal, and exclude her coinnmerce from the Pacific.  We  would hold a power in our hands
which might be exercised at any moment to preserve peace and prevent injustice.  Peace and progress being our aim, we should still
have continued to be the only governmenet on earth whose public
policy from the beginning has been justly and honestly to enforce the
laws of nations with fidelity toward all the nations. Sir, when you
surrendered that exclusive right, you surrendered a great element of
power, which in ourI hands would have been wielded in the cause of
justice for the benefit of mankind.
I was not for such a restrictive policy as would exclude Briti~L
vessels from going through the canal, or the vessels of any othe
nation which should respect our rights.  I would let them all pa.t,
as long as they did not abuse the privilege; close it against th ta
when they did. I insist that the American people occupy a positioa
on tlhis continent which rendered it natura  and proper that we siho-'d
exercise that power. I have no fear of a war with England. I 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
have none now. War should be avoided as long as possible. But,
sir, you need have no apprehension of a war with her, for the reason
that if we keep in the right, she dare not fight us, and she will not,
especially for anything relating to American affairs. She knows she
has given a bond to keep the peace, with a mortgage on all her real
estate in America as collateral security, and she knows she forfeits
her title to the whole, without hope of redemption, if she commits a
breach of the bond.  She will not fight unless compelled.  We could
have fortified that canal at each end, and in time of war could have
closed it against our enemies, and opened it at our own pleasure.  We
had the power of doing it; for the Hise treaty contained provisions for
the construction of fortifications at each terminus and at such points
along the line of the canal as we thought proler.  We  had the
privilege of fortifying it, and we had the right to close it against any
power which should abuse the privilege which we conferred.
Then, sir, what was the objection to the acceptance of that exclusive privilege?  I do not see it, sir.  I know what were the private
arguments urged in times which have gone by, and which I trust
never will return; that England and other European powers never
would consent that the United States should have an exclusive coIntrol ovei' the canal. Well, sir, I do not know that they would have
consented, but of one thing I am certain, I would never have asked
their consent. When Nicaragua desired to confer the privilege, and
when we were willing to accept it it was purely an American questionI with which England had no right to interfere. It was an Anmerican question about which Europe had no right to be consulted.
Are we under any more obligation to consult European powers
about an American question than the allied powers were, in their
Congress, to consult us, when establishing the equilibrium of Europe
by the agency of the Holy Alliance?  America was not consulted
then. Our name does not appear in all the proceedings. It was a
European question, about which it was presumed America had
nothing to say.  lThis question of a canal in Nicaragua, when negotiations were pending to give it to us, was so much an American
question, that the English government was not entitled to be consulted. England not consent! She will acquiesce in your doing
what you may deem right so long as you consent to allow her to hold
Canada, the Bermudas, Jamaica, and her other American possessions.
I hope the time has arrived when we will not be told any nmore that
Europe will not consent to this, and England will not consent to that.
I heard that argument till I got tired of it when we were discussing
the resolutions for the annexation of Texas. I heard it again on the
Oregon question, and I heard it on the California question.  It has
been said on every occasion whenever we had an issue about acquirinig territory, that England would not consent; yet she has acquiesced
in whatever we had the courage and the justice to CIo. And why?
Because we kept ourselves in the right. England was so situated
withl her possessions on this continent, that she dare not fight in an
49 
50     TTHE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
unjust cause. We would have been in the right to have accepted tho
privilege of making this canal, and England would never have dared
to provoke a controversy with us.  I think the time has come when
America should perform her duty according to our own judgment,
and our own sense of justice, without regard to what European
powers might s6y with respect to it.  I think this nation is about
of age.  I think we have a right to judge for ourselves.  Let us
always do rigbht, anl put the consequences behind us.
But, sir, I do net wish to detain the Senate upon this point, or to
prolong the discussion. I have a word or two to say in reply to the
remarks of the senator from Delaware upon so much of my speech
as related to the pledge in the Clayton and Bulwer tieaty, never to
annex any portion of that country. I objected to that clause in the
treaty, upon the ground that I was unwilling to enter into a treaty
stipulation with any European power in respect to this continent,
that we would not do in the future, whatever our duty, interest, houor,
and safety, might require in the course of events.  The senator infers
that I desire to annex Central America because I was unwilling to
give a pledge that we never would do it.  He reminded m'  that
there was a clause in the treaty with Mexico containing the scip)ulation, that in certain contingencies we would never annex any portion
of that country. Sir, it was unnecessary that he should remind me
of that provision. He has not forgotten how hard I struggled to get
that clause out of the treaty where it was retained in opposition to
my vote. Had the senator given me his aid then to defeat that provision in the Mexican treaty, I would be better satisfied now with
his excuse for having inserted a still stronger pledge in his treaty.
But having advocated that pledge then, he should not attempt to
avoid the responsibility of his own act by citing it as a precedent. I
was unwilling to bind ourselves by treaty for all time to come never
to annex any more territory.  I am content for the present with the
territory we have.  I do not wish to annex any portion of Mexico
noV.  I did not wish to annex any part of Central America then,
nor do I at this time.
But I cannot close my eyes to the history of this country tor the
last half century.  Fifty years ago the question was being debated
in this Senate whether it was wise or not to acquire any territory on
the west bank of the Mississippi, and it was then contended that we
could never with safety extend beyond that river. It was at that
time seriously considered whether the Alleghany Mountains should
not be the barrier beyond which we should never pass.  At a subsequent date, after we had acquired Louisiana and Florida, more
liberal views began to prevail, and it was thought that perhaps we
might venture to establish one tier of States west of the Mississippi;
but in order to prevent the sad calamity of an undue expansion of
our territory, the policy was adopted of establishing an Indian Ter.
ritory, with titles in perpetuity, all along the western borders of
those States, so that no more new States could possibly be created 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
in that direction. That barrier could not arrest the onward Irogress
of our people. They burst through it, and passed the Rocky Moun.tains, and were only arrested by the waters of the Pacific.  Who
then is prepared to say that in the progress of events, having met
with the barrier of the ocean in our western course, we may not be
compelled to turn to the north and to the south for an outlet. How
long is it since the gentleman from Delaware himself thought that
the time would never arrive when we would want California?  I am
aware that he was of that opinion at the time we ratified the treaty,
and annexed it.
M R. CLAYTON.-HoW?
MIR. DOUGLAS.  By his voting for Mr. Crittenden's resolutions decla,qi,g that we did not want any portion of Mexican territory.  He
will find his vote in this volume which I hold in my hand.   I am
aware that lie belonged to that school of politicians who thought we
had territory enough.  I have not forgotten that a respectable portion of this body, but a few years ago, thought it would be preposterous to bring a country so far distant as California, and so little
known, into the Union. But it has been done; and now since California has become a member of the confederacy, with her immlense
commerce and inexhaustible resources, we are told that the time will
never come when the territory lying half way between our Atlantia
and Pacific p(ossessions will be desirable.  Central America is too far
ofif, because it is half way to California, and on the main, direct
route-on the very route upon which you pay your senators and
represcuItatives in Congress their mileage in corminig to the capitol of
the nation I The usual route of travel, the public highlway, tlhe halfway house from one portion of the country to the other, is so far distant that the man who thinks the time will ever come when we will
want it, is deemed a madman!
MR. CLAYTON.-Does the senator apply those sentiments to me?
I do not think so.
liMR. DOUGLAS. —I simply say that such an opinion was indicated by
the vote of the gentleman on the resolution of Mr. Crittenden.
MIR. CLAYTON.-The senator is entirely mistaken on tlhat point.
MR. DOUGLAS -In order to save time, I waive the point 1as to the
senator's vote, although it is recorded in the volume before me, and
hlie can read it at his leisure. But I at not mistaken in saying that
the senator on yesterday did ridicule the idea that we were ever to
want any portion of Central America.   ie was utterly amazed, and
in his aniazemtent inquired where were these boundaries, ever to cease.
He wanted to know how far we were going, and if we exp)ected to
spread over tihe entire continent. I do not think we will do it in our
day, but I am inot prepared to prescribe limits to the area over which
I)emiocratic lprinciples may safely spread.  I know not what our
destiny may be.  1 try to keep up with the -p;vit,.f the age, to keep
in view the history of the country, see what wv  harve d(n  wlhitlher
we( are going, and with what velocity we are moving. in or4eJ to be
18
51 
511'IITE  LI E AND  SPEECHES OF
prepared for those events which it is not in the power  of mLan to
Lii wart.
You may make as many treaties as you llease to fetter the limits of
this giant rep)ublic, and slle will burst thelm  all fi(om  her, and her
course will be oiinward( to a limit whic]h I will not venture to describe.
Why the ncces-ity of pledging your f,titll thlat you will never annex
any more of Mexico?  Do you not know tlhat you will be counlmelled
to do it; tlhat you calinot lelp it; that your treaty will riot prevent
it, and that tlhe only effect it will liave will be to enable European
powers to accuse us of bad faitlh wleni thle act is d(ne, and associate
American faithl and Punic tfitli as synonyiious termis? Wlat is the
use of your guaranty that you will never erect an-v foirtificatiois in
Central America; never annex. occupy, or col]()iiize any portionl of
that country?  How do you know that you can avoid (oiig it?  If
you make the caiial, I ask you if Aiijeiicai cilizens will not settle
along its line; whetlher they will not buil(l up towns at eacli teiriii nus; wlhether they will not spread over that country, and convert it
into an American State; wliether Amneri( aii i)riiiciples aid Aiiierican
institutions will not be fiiiily planted thiere? And(l I ask you hlow
many years you tlhink will pass away be'ore y(u will'find the  aine
necessity to extend your laws over your own kirnd(lred tlhat you  itirid
in tlhe case of Texats?  How long will it be befi)re that day arrives?
It miay not oc(cur in the setiator's day nor minie.  But so certain as
tlhis rel)ublic exists, so certain as we renmain a united people, so cer.
tain as the laws of progress which have raised us fromn a iiiere iLllidful to a nliglity nation, shall continue to g(vern our actiun. just so
certain are ti;ese events to be work,(d out, and you will be colmpelled
to extei(nd your protection in that direction.
Sir, I ain not dlesirous of hlastening tfie day. I am not inmpatient
of the timle when it shlall be realized. I do not wish to give any
additional impulse to our progress.  We are going fast enouglh.   But
I wish our public policy, our laws, our institutions, sliould keep  up
with the a(lvanice in science, in the mechanic aits, in agriculture, and
in everythilg that tends to make us a grieat aud liowerlul liation.
Let us look the future in the face, and let us prepare to itiiet tlhat
which cannot be avoided.  Hence I was  unwilling to adopt that
clause in the treaty guaranteeing that neithler party would ever annex,
3ololize, or occupy any portion of Central America.   I was o(,posed
to it for another reason.  It was not reciprocal.  Great Britain  had
possession of the island of Jamaica. Jamaica was the nearest armed
and fortified point to the terminus of the ca.al.  Jamaica at  )iesent
commands  the entrance of the canal; and all that Great Britain
desired was, inasmuch as she had possession of tlhe only lI)lace coiimanding the canal, to procure a stil)ulation tlhat no other power
would ever erect a fortification nearer its terniinus.   That  ti)ulLtion
is equivalent to an agreement that England miay fortitf, but that we
never lshall. Sir, wlien you lo,,k at the wlhole history of tlhat ques.
tion you will see that England, with her far-seeing, t,agaciUus pIolicy, 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
has attempted to circumscribe and restrict and restrain the fret action
of this government.  When was it that Great Britain seized the posassion of the terminus of this canal? Just six days after the signing
of the t! eaty which secured to us Caiifornia!  The moment England
saw, that by the pending negotiations with Mexico, Calif()rnia was to
b)e acquired, shle collected her fleets and made preparations for the
seizure of the port of San Juan, in order that she might be gatekeel)er on the public highway to our new possessions on the Pacific.
Within six days from the timne we signed the treaty, England seized
by force and vi(olence the very point now in controversy.  Is not this
fact indicative of her motives? Is it not clear that her object was to
obstruct our passage to our new possessions,   llence4I do not sytnpatlize with that feeling which the senator exp)ressed yesterday, that
it was a pity to have a difference with a nation so firiendly to us as
England. Sir, I do not see the evidence of her friendship. It is not in
the nature of things that she can be our friend.  It is impossible she
can love us. I do not blame her for not loving us. Sir, we have
wounded her vanity and lii ta)le)d her pride.  She can never forgive
us.  But f,,r us, she would be the first power on the face of the
earth.  But for us, she would lhave the prospect of maiuntaining that
proud position which sloe held tfor so long a period. We are in her way.
She is jealous of us, and jealousy f)rbi(ds the idea of friendship.  England (o(es not love us; shle cannot love us, and we do not love her either.
'e lhave some things in the past, to lremember that are not agreeable.
She lias -more in the present to humniliate her that she cannot forgive.
I do not wish to administer to the feeling of jealousy and rivalry
that exists between us and —England. I wish to soften and allay it
as much as possible; but why close our eyes to the fact that friendship is impossible while jealousy exists. Hence England seizes every
island in the sea and rock upon our coast where she can plant a gun
to intimidate us or to annoy our commerce.  Her policy has been to
seize every military and naval station the world over.  Why does
she pay such enormous sums to keep her post at Gibraltar, except to
hold it "in terrorem" over the commerce of the Mediterranean?
Why her enormous expense to maintain a garrison at the Cape of
Good Ilope, except to command the great passage on the way to the
Indies?  Why is she at the expense to keep her position on the little
barren islands, Bermuda and the miserable Bahamas, and all the
other islands along our coast, except as sentinels upon our actions 
Does England hold Bermuda because of any profit it is to her? Has
she any other moti-ve for retaining it except jealousy which stimulates
hostility to ius?  Is it not the case with all her possessions along our
coast? Why, then, talk about the friendly bearing of England
toward us when she is extending that policy every day?  New
treaties of friendship, seizure of islands, and erection of new colonies
in violation of her treaties, seem to be the order of the day.  In vie-i
of this state of things, I am in favor of meeting England as we meet
a rival; meet her boldly, treat her justly and fairly, but nlake uo
53 
54    THE 1 tFE AND SPEECHES OF
humiliating concession even for the sake of peace.  She has as much
reason to make concessions to us as we have to make them to her.
I would not willingly disturb the peace of the world; but, sir, the Bay
Island colony must be discontinued. It violates the treaty.
Now, Mr. President, it is not my purpose to say another word upon
our foreign relations. I have only occupied so much time as was
necessary to put myself right in respect to the speech made by the
senator from Delaware. Hie advocates one line of policy in regard
to our foreign relations, and I have deemed it my duty to advocate
another. It has been my object to put the two systems by the side
of each other that the public might judge between us.
MAr. Mason having continued the debate on Monday, March
14th, Mr. Clayton occupied a portion of that and the succeeding days in a reply to Mr. Douglas-to which, on Wednesday,
the 17th of March, Mr. Douglas responded:
MR. PRESIDENT: I had a right to expect that the senator from
Delaware, in his reply, would have ventured upon an argument
against the positions which I had assumed in my former speech, and
which he had assailed. It will be observed, upon a close examination,
that he has evaded nearly every point in controversy between us,
uinder the cover of free indulgence in coarse personalities. I do not
complain of this. He had a right to choose his own course of discussion. Perhaps it was prudent in him to pursue the course which
he adopted.  I shall not follow his example, however.   I inmay not
have the same inducements that may have prompted him. If I has
been driven from nearly every position I had assumed in debate-if
nearly every material fact I had asserted had been negatived and
disproved by official documents bearing my own signatures-if I had
bten convicted of giving one explanation of my conduct at one time,
and at other times different and contradictory reasons, I might be
promnpted to seek refuge under personalities from the exposure that
might be made. Sir, I pass that all by.
The senator, as a last resort, attempted to get up unkind feelings
between my political friends and mnystlf in regard to this debate. He
endeavored to show that my speech was an assault upon every senator who took a different course.  He went further, and charged that
I, as a Presidential candidate, was pursuing this course in order to
dtestroy and break down rivals in my own party. Sir, these insidious
and disreputable assaults do not disturb my equanimity.  The object
is to enlist, from prejudice and unworthy motives, a sympathy in the
course of discussion which he has attempted to maintain. But I
appeal to the Senate if I assailed any senator upon this floor, either
in regard to the Hise treaty or the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. I
appeal to the Senate if-I mentioned the name of any senator, or stated
how any one man had voted.  I did not disclose even how the vote 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
stood.  No citizen in America would have known  the vote of any
senator on this floor from my speech, or from my participation in the
recent discussion; and I have yet to learn that a vindication of my
own course involves an assault upon those who chose to differ with
me. I have not understood the speeches of the senator from Michigan (Mr. Cass) and of the senator from Virginia (Mr. Mason)' and of
other senators, who have spoken on this question, in opposition to
some of my views, as an attack on myself. It was their duty to vindicate their own course with the reasons which prompted them; and
it was my right and my duty to give the reasons which induced and
'compelled me to pursue the course that I did.
I do not choose to occupy the time of the Senate in a matter that
partakes so much of a personal character. But the senator cannot
avail himself of that argument in vindication of his course in sup.
pressing the Hise treaty. He is not supported by that array of names
which he has produced for that act. No one of the senators ever did
sustain him, so far as I know, in suppressing the Hise treaty. That
treaty was never submitted to the Senate for ratification. The Senate were never permitted to examine it. The treaty, to this day,
has been withheld from the Senate. You will have to go elsewhere
than to the files of this body to find that treaty. How can it be said
that senators have sustained him in his rejection of the Hise treaty,
when he had deprived the Senate of an opportunity of showing
whether they were for or against it? Sir, he cannot have the benefit
of those names which he has quoted to shelter him upon that point.
Again, sir, he has quoted all the eminent names from General
Jackson down to the present time, to support him in his refusal to
accept of the exclusive control of the canal for his own country. Sir,
he has no authority thus to quote them; he has no authority for saying that any one of those eminent statesmen were opposed to such a
privilege as the Hise treaty showed that we could have acquired. It
is true that when Central America granted a privilege to a company
in the Netherlands to make this canal, the administration of General
Jackson, under that state of facts, were content with asserting our
right to an equal participation. It is also true that when a Frenchman had procured a charter for a railroad across the isthmus of
Panama, and thus it had gone into the hands of foreigners, the administration of President Polk were content to assert our claim to an
equal right. But it is not true that either of them ever refused to accept an exclusive privilege for this country when voluntarily tendered.
I am not going to occupy the attention of the Senate with an array
of names for or against this proposition. I quoted no names in my first
argument. I addressed myself to the merits of the question, and chose
to decide it by arguments upon its merits, and not by the authority of
great names. - I would rather see the senator sustain his position now
by arguments upon the merits of his own official action, and not by an
appeal to the action of great men who lived at a different period, and
whliose acts were dependent upon entirely different circumstan,'e.
55 
66   T  HE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
One word more, and I proceed to the main point at issue.  Th#
senator has accused me of having attempted to make this a p)arty
question.  How did I attempt it?  In my speech of February last,
to which he replied, he cannot find the term Whig or Democrat, ol
a political allusion, or a partisan argument. I explained my ownI
principles of action as evinced in my votes; and I expressly stated
that they were not sanctioned by either Whig or Democratic adminis
trations upon some of the points. I did not invoke the aid of sympa
thy of party. I was willing to stand upon the truth and the soundness
of my own record, and leave the future to determine whether I was
right or wrong on the question. Sir, partisan politics have been
introduced by the senator, and not by me. The senator, in his speech
in reply to me, endeavored to show that Democratic administrations
had done this, and Democratic administrations had done that, and
appealed to partisan authority, to sustain himself. I admit his right
to introduce party questions, and to appeal to party names as authority.  I have not done it, and I deny his right to charge it uponI me.
Sir, I invoked the aid of no partisan feeling or party organization for
the support of the position I maintained. But when the senator
showed that a majority of my own party, on the ratification of the
Clayton and Bulwer treaty, had recorded their names in opposition
to mine, he ought to have been content, without charging that I was
mnaking it a party question. It was not a very agreeable thing to me
to be compelled to differ with three-fourths of the Senate, including
a majority of my own political friends, and nothing but a sense of
duty would have compelled me to take the responsibility of such a
course.
Now, let us go back to the real point.  Why all these attempts to
avoid the main issue?  In the first pl)ace the senator denied that he
was responsible for not sending the Hise treaty to the Senate, inasmuch as it had been rejected by Central America.  Then, when I
showed that the rejection of tlJat treaty was procured by lhis own
agent in obedience to hlis instructions, he denied the existence of the
instructions.  When I produced the instructions, and showed that
the agent acted in obedience to what lie believed to. be their true
meaning, the senator acknowledged his opposition to the treaty, and
justified it upon the ground that it* guaranteed the independence of
Pi(.aragua.  When I shiowed that lie could not have objected to it on
that grounrd, for the reason that at that very time he proposed a
guaranty, in connection with Great Britain, of the independence of
Nicaragua, hlie abandons that position, and is driven to the extremity
of seeking refuge under what hlie chooses to consider obnoxious
details.  When I showed that his objections to the details could( not
avail himn, because it was no reason  for withholding the treaty
according to the usages of the Senate, he then comes to the point
that it was better to have a partnership privilege than an exclusive
one.  That brings us to the real question.  Why could we not have
come to it at once?  If he was right in his prefereace for a Europeap 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
partnerslip over an exclusive privilege to his own country, why did
lie not avow the fact at once and justify his conduct, instead of wasting the time of the Senate in requiring me to prove facts which
ought to have been confessed, and which have been proven by his
OWn written testimony, in opposition to his own denial?
In his last speech the senator chose to persevere in representing
me as the advocate of a canal to be made through Central America,
with funds from the Treasury of the JUnited States. I need not
renlind the senator that  ie had 1no authority, firom anything I have
said, to attribute to me such a purpose.  I certainly did not assume
any such position, while my remarks were calculated to negative
such an idea.  My position was this: that while negotiating for the
right of way for a canal firom the Atlantic to thle Pacific, we should
have accepted the offer to our own government of the exclusive light
to control it, instead of a partnership with England  and the other
powers of thle earth. The Hise treaty granted the privilege either
to the United States or to an, American compauy under our protectioni, at our option. I insisted that we had the sanme right to take it
to ourselves that we had to take it jointly with  otier powers.   It
requires no further exertion of constitutional power to execute and
maintain and regulate an exclusive privilege to America than it d(id to
execute and maintain   a partnershlip privilege with European powers.
HIence his objections upion that scorle must fall to the ground.   The
sitl-)le question was, whlether it would have been wise to accept that
privilege. Sir, I think it would have been. I amn not going to
repeat tle argument I made the other day upon that point.  If it
had been given to us, we could have opened the canal to tile world
upon such terms as we deemed proper.  We could hlave withdllrawn
the use of it whienever a nation failed to respect our righits. It-would
have been a bond of peace instead of being an apple of discord
between us and other nations; because when you bring all the great
Powers of the earth into partnership, constant disputes will arise as
to thle nature and extent of the rights of the respective parties. Tile
history of these negotiations proves this fact.
But, sir, let me ask the senator what he has gained by his rejeotion of tile Hise treaty?  lie tas given the world to understand by
his speeches tihat he has accotllplishled two great objects: tlhe one to
open a canal between the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans-tithe othet
to put a stop to British encroacltments in Central America.  Has he
accomplislied either of those objects?  I ask what privilege lie has
gained to make a canal?  He has not even secured the right of way
for a canal, either jointly or separately. He is responsible for having
defeated the project of a canal between the two oceans. He refused
the grant of the right of way, because it gave the righlt to control the
work exclusively to his own country. T-ie treaty which he caused
to be made, failed to receive tile sanction of the Senate.  Tlhus we
are left witltout any right of way-withont any charter, right, or
priv;lege.  Instead of accomplishing that object, he is responsible for
57 
68  THE  LIFE AND   PEECHIES OF
its defeat. All that he has to boast of is, that he deprived his own
country of an inestimable privilege, the necessity and importance of
whilch are now conceded on all hands.
What, thlen, have we gained by his diplomacy?  Why, sir, after
having failed in getting the privilege of making the canal, either
jointly or separately, lie makes a treaty with Great Britain by which,
if we hereafter secure it, the privilege is given to Great Britain as
well as to ourselves. The Clayton and Bnlwer treaty provides that
any right of way oc communication which may be secured at any
future time, shlall be open alike to England and the United States,
and under the joint control and protection of tile two powers.   We
have a treaty with England about a canal in Central America, but
we have none with any of the Central American States.  Let me
ask, then, how much have we gained?  Has he expelled the British
from Central America by his treaty?  What inch of country have
they given up.  What right have they abandoned?  What functionary
have they withdrawn? Where is the evidence that you have driven
the British firom  Central America?  Are they not still in the full
enjoyment of their protectorate upon the Mosquito coast? Have you
driven them from the Balize?
The senator from Michigan'Mr. Cass), and the chairman of the
Committee on Foreign Relations (Mr. Mason), in their speeches, have
maintained that the Clayton and Bulwer treaty would fairly include
the Balize as a part of Central America.  But the senator from Delaware, while acting as the secretary of state, gave a construction to
that treaty which  excludes the Balize.  The senator, therefore, is
estopped from saying that he has expelled the British fiom the
Balize.   The fact shows that he has not driven the British protectorate firom the coast. We find that instead of leaving Central America,
the British lhave not only established a colony at the Bay Islands,
but, if the newspaper information received by the last steamers can
be credited, they have bombarded the towns upon the main land. and
taken forcible possession of a part of the state of Honduras.   Then
I repeat the question to the senator, what has he gained?  I can tell
him what has resulted from his negotiation.  He has recognized the
right of Great Britain and all European powers to interfere with the
affairs of the American states.  He has recognized that right by a
treaty; and he has guaranteed to England that we will use our good
offices to enable them to enter into arrangements with these Central
American states. He has exclu(led the idea that the question of tho
Central American states is an American question, and by his negotiation has opened it as a European question.  In other words, he
has, by his treaty, abolished what is known as the Monroe doctrine,
with reference to a large portion of the American continent.
This brings me to the examination of another question. The senatar from Delaware chose to arraign me upon that portion of my
speech, in which I stated that I was unwilling to give a pledge never
to annex any more territory to the United States. He then went on 
STEPHEN A. D OUGLAS.
t  arglie against annexation, said we were  pledged, and that the
i,,,dge given was correct, and attempted to vindicate it.  He  arraigiled me for having said that such a treaty could not be enforced
thl-rougii all time to collie.  I explained to him that my idea was that
the growvtli of this country was so great and so rapid that the barriers of any treaty would be irresistibly broken through by natural
causes, over which we had no control; and lienice that the treaty
ought not to have been made.  He told me that the explanation
made it worse, and that he would shlow that the doctrine involved
moral tur)itud(e: that he was amazed and grieved that any one here
from this high place should proclaim suchl a sentiment.
Sir, I will proceed to show my authority on that point, which I
think lie will be compelled to respect. Ili taking that position, I
only reiterated the opinions expressed by the late secretary of state,
and now senator fhrom Massachlusetts (Mr. Everett), in his letter to
the Comte de Sarties, a few months ag,), in respect to the island of
Cuba; and when the senator from Delaware arraigns me for uttering sentimrnents involving a want of respect for treaty stipulations, I
will turn him over to the senator fiom Massachusetts and to ex-President Fillmnore, and allow thenl to settle that issue between thlemselves. I wishl to call the attention of the senator to the letter of
tMr. Everett to the Comnte de Sartiges. In thtiat letter you find the
following passage in regard to a proposed convention stipulating that
we would never annex Cuba;
"The convention would be of no value unless it were lasting; accordingly
its terms express a perpetuity of purpose and obligation. Now, it may well be
doubted whether the Constitution of the United States would allow the treatymaking power to impose a permanent disability on the American government
for all coming time, and prevent it, under any future change of circumstances,
from doing what has been so often done in times past. In 1803 the United
States purchased Louisiana of France, and in 1819 they purchased Florida of
Spain. It is not within the competence of the treaty-making power in 1852
effectually to bind the government in all its branches; and for all coming
time not to make a similar purchase of Cuba."
The senator from Delaware will see that the late secretary of state,
Mr. Everett, by the direction of President Fillmnore, has pronounced
such a guaranty to be a violation of the Constitution of the United
States, and the exercise of an authority not conferred by that instrument. Sir, if the Constitution gave no authority to make a pledge
by this government that we will never annex Cuba, I suppose it does
not authorize a pledge never to annex Central America.  The constitu ional objection applies to the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, in relation to Central Anmerica, with the same force that it did to the
proposed convention in respect to Cuba.  They take higher ground
than I did. I was not willing to do that which would involve a
breach of faith in the progress of events.  But I did not go so far as
to deny the constitutional power to make such a treaty. And, therefore, I ask the senator why he did not arraign President Fillmore
59 
60     THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
why he did not arraign the late secretary of state, MAr. Everett, for
uttering those mionstronis sentinents, instead of Ihurling his anatliemas upon iiiy lead, as if I h-ad been the ouly mall in Aiterica who
ever ventured to proclaimn such opinions?  According to the opinions of Presid(lent Fill,more, and his secretary of state, as p)rolunlgated
in Mr. Everett's celebrated letter, and applauded by the almorst unanilnous voice of the Anmerican peol)le, the Clayton and Bil wer treaty
was a palpable violation of the Constfitutioin of tlhe Unite(d States.
But Mr. Fillhnore and Mr. Everett were not content withl denying
the power of this govern,,ient, under the Constitution, to enter into
this treaty stil)till:tion. Tlhey deny its propriety, its-iustice, its wisdom, as well as the right to mhake it. I will read a passage upon this
point:
"There is another strong objection to thie proposed agreement. Among the
oldest traditions of the Federal Government is an aversion to political alliances
with European powers.  In his memorable Farewell Address, President Washington says:' The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is,
in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them
be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.' President Jefferson, in
his inaugural address, in 1801, warned the country against entangling alliances.
This expression, now become proverbial. was unquestionably used by Mr. Jefferson in reference to the alliance with France of 1778, an alliance at the time
of incalculable benefit to the United States, but which in less than twenty years
came near involving us in the wars of the French Revolution, and laid the foundation of heavy claims upon Congress not extinguished to the present day. It
is a significant coincidence that the particular provision of the alliance which
occasioned these evils was that under which France called upon us to aid her
in defending her West Indian possessions against England.  Nothing less than
the unbounded influence of Washington rescued the Union from the perils of
that crisis and preserved our neutrality."
As the senator from Delaware is fond of the authority of great
names, I not only furnishl him with the name of the late secretary of
state, and that of the late Presiden)t of the United States, upon the
points to which I have referred, but I have the autholity of these
gentlemen for saying that his doctrine with regard to Central America
is in violation of the solemn warnings of the Fathler of his Country,
and in derogation of the protests of Mr. Jefferson, repeated over
and over again during his eventful life.  I find that the late seelietary
of state has again, in another passage, suiimned up the objections
which I entertained to the Clayton and Btilwer treaty, and I will
call the attention of the Senate to it.  It is this:
"But the President has a graver objection to entering into the proposed convention. He has no wish to disguise the feeling, that the compact, although
equal in its terms, would be very unequal in substance   France and England,
by entering into it, would disable themselves from obtaining possession of an
island remote from their seats of government, belonging to another European
power, whose natural right to possess it must always be as good as their own
— a distant island, in another hemisphere, and one which by no ordinary or
peac eful course of things could ever belong to either of them. If the present 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
balance of powex in Europe should be broken up; if Spain should become tin
able to maintain the island in her possession, and France and England should
be engaged in a death-struggle with each other, Cuba might then be the prize
of the victor. Till these events all take place. the President does not see how
Cuba can belong to any European power but Spain.  The United States, on
the other hand, would, by the proposed convention, disable themselves from
making an acquisition which might take place without any disturbance of existing foreign relations, and in the natural order of things."
If thle prosposed guaranty never to annex Cuba was not reciprocal
as betweeen the United States and England, how is it that it can be
said that a similar guaranty respecting Central Anierica was reciprocal? Every argument urged by the late secretary of state against
reciprocity in one, applies with equal force to thlie other.  It lnay be
said that Cuba stands at the entrance of the Gulf of Mexico; but it
can be said wvitli equal truth that Central America is upon tire public
higliway to our Pacific possessions.  Both stand as gates to this public lhiglhway, and every argument urged in relation to the one is
equally applicable to the other.
Now I leave to quote the late secretary of state and President
Filliiiore against the senator from Delaware on another point. Wien
I remarked that the history of this country showed that our growth
and expansion could not be resisted, and would inevitably break
through whatever barriers mnighlt be erected by the present generation to restrain our fiture progress, the senator fiont Delaware assunied the righlit to rebuke ime for uttering sentiments inmplying perfidvyand mnoral turl)itude.  He desired to know if sentimenets of that
kined were to be tolerated in the American Senate?  Let liimi hear
his fiiend from  Massachusetts on  that point, in the same documnient:
" That a convention such as is proposed would be a transitory arrangement,
uenre to he swept away by the irresistible tide of affairs in a new country, is. to
the apprehension of the President, too obvious to require a labored argument.
The project rests on principles applicable, if at all, to Europe, where international relations are in their basis of great antiquity, slowly modified for the
most part in the progress of time and events; and not applicable to America,
which, but lately a waste, is filling up with intense rapidity, and adjusting, on
natural principles, those territorial relations which on the first discovery of the
contaient were in a good degree fortuitous.".
" But whatever may be thought of these last suggestions, it would seem impossible for any one who reflects upon the events g!anced at in this note to
mistake the law of American growth and progress, or think it can ultimately
arrested by a convention like that proposed. In the judgment of the President, it would be as easy to throw a dam from Cape Florida to Cuba, in the
hope of stopping the flow of the Gulf Stream, as to attempt, by a comrpact like
this, to fix the fortunes of Cuba, now and for hereafter, or, as expresse l in the
French text of the convention,' pour le present comme pour l'avenir,' that is
for all coming time."
There thle senator is told that such a stipulation might be applicable to European 1tolitics, but would be unsuited and unfitted to Ainerican affairs; that  hlie hlas mistaken entirely the systenm o policy,
61 
62     THE LIFE AND SPEECHES O0
whlich slhould( be applied to our own country, that lie hlas predicated
his action upon  those old, antiquated  notions wlichl- belong to the
stationary an(l retrogra(le movements of the Old VWorild, and find no
sylnpathy in tile youtllhful, uprising aspirations of tlhe American lheart.
I indorse fully the sentimnent.   I insist that tlhere is a (difference, a
wide difference, between tile system of p(licy wliicl should be'ptursued
in America and that which would be al)plicable to Euro;)e.  Europe
is antiquated, decrepit, tottering on thle verge of dissolution.  When
you visit lher, tlhe objects whlicli enlist yoL- niglhest a(ldiiiration are
the relics of past greatness; the broken colutnrtis erected to delp)arted
power.  It is one vast graveyard, where you find hlee a tomb indicating the burial of the arts; tihere a iiinonuinetit mnarking the spot
where liberty expired;  another to tlhe Imemory of a great mnan,
whose place has never been filled.   The cllhoicest products of her
classic soil consists in relics, whicli retain as sad( memnorials of departed glory and fallen greatness!  Thley bring up the memories of
thl-e d(ead(, but inspire.no hope for the living!  Here everytliing is
fresllh, bl)1ooming, expanding, and advancing. We wislh a wise, prcetical policy a(ldal)ted to our condition and position.   Sir, tlhe statesimai who would  shlape the policy of America by European models,
has failed to perceive the antagonismn which exists in the relativ-e
position, }listory, institutions-in everything  pertaining to the Old
and the New World.
The senator from Delaware seems always to have had his back
turned upon his own country, and his eye intently fixed uponi Europe
as the polar star of all his observations.   If it would not be deeined
an indelicate illterposition between the senrator fromn  I)elaware and
his firiend from  Massacliusetts (M'r. Everett), I should be inr(lined( to
say that the criticismii of the late secretary of state, altl-oughil not internded for tlle senator from Delaware, is strictly apllicable to this
diplomacy, and fully deserved.  I sllall not go into the discussion of
that question, however.' I deny the right of the senator fioin Delaware to comeback at me on that point.  I shall certainly turn him
over to his friend fr,)m M,issacllusetts (Mr. Everett), because lie will
not dare to accuse him of political prejudices  and partisan feelings.
HIe has said severer things of tlhe seniator's diplomacy than I thought
the rules of the Senate would authorize me  to indulge in.   The exPresidetnt of tlhe United States has sanctioned them, and now I think
I am at liberty to refer to them, for if it were not within the rules of
courtesy and dip)lomacy, they would not be sent here.   But, sir, I
may be permitted to add that thle nation has sanctioned them too;
for I atnmnot aware that a State paper was ever issued in America
that receive(l a heartier response in most of its principles, thanl tile
letter of tlhe late secretarv of state to the Comte de  Sartiges, to
which I lhave referred.  Sir, if he had done nothling else to render
his administration of the State Department  illustrious, his name
would live in all coming time  in that diplomatic letter, as one who
could appieciate the spirit of the age, and perceive the destiny of tlhe
nation.  No document has ever received such a universal sanction 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
of the American people as the one to which I have referred, con.
demning and repudiating the diplomacy of the senator from  Delaware in relation to the American continent.
Mr. President, I have not much more to addl. The senator has
arraigned me also for having attempted to arouse unkind feelings between the United States and England. I deny that the arraignment
is just.
I have attempted no such thing. I have never attempted to foster
jealousies or unkind feelings between our own country and any
other. I have attempted to plant our relations on a.micable terms,
by speaking the truth plainly as we and they know it to exist. The
remarks that I have made about friendly relations between the two
countries, were drawn out by his statement that England was known
to be so "friendly" to us. I said to him I did not think the friendly
relations of England constituted any claim upon our gratitude. I
have seen no evidence of that friendship. I said frankly I did not
think that England loved us, and it was useless for us to pretend
that we loved her. The history of the two countries proves it. The
daily action of the two countries proves it. England is spending her
millions to maintain her fortifications all along our coast *at the Bermudas, the Bahamas, and at Jamaica, and on every rock and barren
waste along the American coast. What does she keep them up for?
Does she make money out of them? Why, you all know that they are
a source of unbounded expenditure to her. Does it extend her commerce?  Does it employ her shipping?  Not at all.  Why does she
keep them? In order to point her guns at America.
Well, if she is so friendly to us, and we are so friendly to her, what
necessity is there for pointing her cannon all the time at us? And
if these are evidences of friendship, why do we not reciprocate it by
sending over a few cannon and planting them on every little island
and rock near her coast? If we were to seize upon every military
and naval position, and expend millions in keeping up fortifications
all along her coast, would that be any evidence of friendly feeling on
our part toward England? I do not see it.
Again: the moment it was discovered that we were to acquire
California as a consequence of the Mexican war, England sent her
armed ships and seized possession of the town of San Juan, and I
have the authority of the senator from Delaware for saying there is
reason to believe that the act was done out of hostility to the American government. Why did she want the town of San Juan? Simply for the reason that by the Mexican treaty our possessions had been
enlarged upon the Pacific coast, and it evidently became necessary,
in order to preserve this Union and maintain our commerce, that we
should have the line of intercommunication between the two oceans
so as to connect the Atlantic and Pacific States together; and therefore, in order to cut off our right of way, in order to establish a toll
gate upon our public highway, she seized possession of that point as
the one from which she could annoy us most.
The senator will not pretend that he believes that act originated
63 
64    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
in friendly feelings- toward us on the part of England. I have liis
authority in his public documents for saying that he believes it originated in motives of jealousy and hostility. The object was, not to
advance her own interest, not to increase her own commerce, not to
extend her own power, but to restrain, fetter, and cripple our energies and our power. Are these acts evidence of friendship on her
part toward us, and are we so constituted that we feel grateful for
them? Sir, let us not play the hypocrite upon this subject. Let us
speak out the naked truth, plainly and boldly.  We feel that this
seizure of every rock and island upon our coast, and converting them
into garrisoned fortresses, with guns to bear on American commerce
and American interests, are no evidence of friendship. We feel that
these attempts to surround and fetter us, and hem us in, are evidences
of hostility, which it is our duty plainly to see and boldly to resist.
Sir, the way to establish friendly relations with England is, to let
her know that we are not so stupid as not to understand her policy,
nor so pusillanimous as to submit to her aggressions. The moment
she understands that we mean what we say, and will carry out any
principle we profess, she will be very careful not to create any point
of difference between us. It is want of candor and frankness that
keeps the two nations in conflict with each other. I say, that as long
as this policy of hemming us in, and fettering us, and trying to restrain our growth and curtail our power continues, we cannot feel
friendly and kindly toward her; and so long as she persists in that
policy, we ought not to believe that she feels kindly toward us. If
we tell her so, she will do one of two things; either abandon her
aggressive course, or avow her hostility; and of all things let us
know whether she is our friend or our enemy. Therefore, I will
repeat very frankly, that it is useless to endeavor to conceal the fact
that there are jealousies between us and England growing out of
rival interests, and that her policy has for its aim to restrain our
power rather than increasing her own. Our policy is, to enhance
our own power and greatness, without attempting to restrain hers.
Ours is generous, honorable, and justifiable; hers is illiberal; unkind,
unjust, and we ought to tell her so.
I believe, Mr. President, I have said all I have to say upon this
question. My object has been simply to reply to the points raised
by the senator in his speeeh. I do not wish to travel over the ground
again. There are many other points in the discussion into which I
could have gone. There are many other positions that the documents which have been lately published would furnish me ample
material for prolonging the discussion, but I do not wish to occupy
the time of the Senate. I only wish to show that the real points at
issue are: first, that the senator preferred a partnership with England to an exclusive privilege to his own country for the great interoceanic canal.  Secondly, that he believes in the policy of pledging
this country never to annex any more territory in all time to come.
I repudiate that policy. These are the main points between us, antd 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
the last point, in the course of the discussion, seems to have become
the material one. He is opposed to all further annexation, an(l wishes
to make treaties now to restrain us in all time to come from extending our possessions.
I do not wish to annex any more territory now. But I avow
freely that I foresee the day when you will be compelled to do it,
and cannot help it, and when treaties cannot prevent the consummation of the act. Hence my policy would be to hold the control of
our own action, give no pledges upon the subject, but bide our time,
and be at liberty to do whatever our interest, our honor, and duty may
require -when the time for action may come.  An old, decrepit nation,
tottering and ready to fall to pieces, may well seek for pledges ar(j
guaranties from a youthful, vigorous, growing power, to protect her
old age. But a young nation, with all her freshness, vigor, anal
youth, desires no limits fixed to her greatness, no boundaries to her
future growth. She desires to be left free to exercise her own powers,
exert her own energies, according to her own sense of duty in all
comiing time. This, sir, is the main issue between us, and I am
ready to submit it to the Senate and to the country.
[Senator B)utler, in continuation of the debate on the same day,
having assailed some of the positions maintained by Senator Douglas,
and pronounced a eulogy upon England and her literature, Senator
Douglas replied:]
MR. PRESIDrENT: In reply to the senator from South Carolina, I
wish to state to him, without going into the controversy as to which
is the right policy forthe President when a treaty contains objects.
desirable and details obnoxious, that he will find an example in point
in thle case of the Mexican treaty containing provisions which the
Preo-ident and Senate both regarded as unconstitutional, yet the
President sent the treaty here, and pointed out the obnoxious
parts. The senator and those acting with him modified it, perfected
it, voted for it, and ratified it in opposition to my vote, and it became
the law of the land. It is a case precisely in point, and I merely
mention it, and leave that part of the question.
MR. BUTLER.-I think the Mexican treaty was sent as an entirety.
We amended it no doubt, but it was sent as an entirety by President
Polk, saying that Mr. Trist had usurped power which he did not
possess.  It was exactly one of those instances in which the treaty
had been made, and he asked the Senate to adopt it, but he sent it
in as an entire thing.
M][. DOUGLAS.-The President sent it in, stating that there were
certain provisions in it which must be striken out before it could be
sanctioned by him. But now to another point: The gentlemnan coin.
mnented upon a remark that I had made, and which also was con tained in the letter of the late secretary of state (Air. Everett), and
seems to suppose that we were advocating the doctrine of not ob serving the faith of treaties. That did not put us before the country
bui he t ae position which we have assumed.  My position is this
65 
66     THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
that we should never make a treaty which we cannot carry int(, full
execation; that good faith requires us not to make a treaty unless
we intend to execute it, nor make one which we probably cannot be
able to execute. My argument, therefore, was an argument against
the making of treaties improperly upon points that were unnecessary.
and which could not be carried into effect, and not in favor of violat ing any treaties that had been made.  It was an argument in favor
of the sanctity of treaties; and those who make treaties profusely
and recklessly, binding us for all time to come without reference to
the ability in future to execute them, are the ones who ought to
be arraigned, if anybody should be, for not being faithful to treaty
stipulations. I wish, therefore, to make this explanation, in order
that no misapprehension as to the position which I have assumed
may be entertained in any quarter.
The senator referred to a remark of mine in regard to the decay
and decline of European'powers, and made it the excuse for a eulo gium upon England as the source from which we have derived every thing that is valuable in science and art; in literature, law, and politics.
When I am reminded of the greatness of England, as connected
with her statesmen and orators, and the illustrious names of HIlamp den and Sydney are pointed to as examples, I cannot fail to remnem ber-I can never forget-that the samne England which gave them
birth, and should have felt a mother's pride and love in their virtues
and services, persecuted her noble sons to the dungeon and the
scaffold, and attempted to brand their names with infamy in all conming time, for the very causes which have endeared them to us and
filled the republican world with their fame! Nor am I unmindful
of the debt of gratitude which the present generation owes to the
brilliant galaxy of great names whose fortune it was to have been
born and to have suffered in England, and whose labors and researches in political, legal, and physical science-in literature, poetry,
and art, have added so much lustre on their native land.  Some
pursued their labors under the protection and patronage of the Fnglish governmnent-others in defiance of her tyranny and vengeance.
I award all credit and praise to the authors of all the blessings and
advantages we have inherited firom that source.
I cannot gro as far as the senator from South Carolina.  I cannot
recognize England as our mother.  If so, she is and ever has been a
cruel and unnatural mother.  I do not find the evidence of her affection in her watchfulness over our infancy, nor in her joy and pride
at our ever-bloomning prosperity and swelling power, since we assuined an independent position.
The proposition is not historically true. Our ancestry were not
all of English origin.  They were of Scotch, Irish, German, French,
and of Norman  descent as well as English.  In short, we inherit from
every branch of the Caucasian race. It has been our aim and policy
to prlit by their example-to reject their errors and follies-,and to
retain, imitate, cultivate, perpetuate all that was valuable and desir 
8TEPHEN A. DOUGLA S.
able. So far as any portion of the credit may be due t( England and
Englishmen-and much of it is-let it be freely awarded ired recorded
in her ancient archives, which seem to have been long since forgotten
by her, and the memory of which her present policy toward us is
not well calculated to revive.  But, that the senator from South
Carolina, inI view of our present position and of his location in this
Confederacy, should indulge in glowing and eloquent eulogiumns of
England for the blessings and benefits she has conferred and is still
lavishing upon us, and urge these considerations in palliation of the
wrongs she is daily perpetrating, is to me amazing. tlie speaks ill
terms of delight and gratitude of the copious and refreshing streams
which English literature and science are pouring into our country
and diffusing throughout the land. Is he not aware that nearly every
English book circulated and read in this country contains lurking
and insidious slanders and libels upon the character of our people
and the institutions and policy of our government? ILoes he not know
that abolitionism, which has so seriously threatened the peace and
safety of this republic, had its origin in England, and has been incorporated into the policy of that government for the purpose of
operating upon the peculiar institutions of some of the States of this
confederacy, and thus render the Union itself insecure? Does she
not keep her missionaries perambulating this country, delivering
lectures and scattering broadcast incendiary publications, designed
to incite prejudices, hate, and strife between the different sections
of this Union? I had supposed that South Carolina and the other
slavel-olding States of this confederacy had been sufficiently refreshed
and enlightened by a certain species of English literature, designed
to stir up treason and insurrection around his own fireside, to have
excused the senator from offering up praises and hosannas to our
English mother!  (Applause in the galleries.)  Is not the heart, intellect, and press of England this moment employed in flooding
Amrerica with this species of "English literature?"' Even the wives
and daughters of the nobility and the high officers of government
have had the presumption to address the women of Anierica, and in
the name of philanthropy appeal to them to engage in the treasonable
plot against the institutions and government of their own choice in
their native land, while millions are being expended to distribute
" Uncle Toni's Cabin" throughout the world, with the view of coiiibining the fanaticism, ignorance, and hatred of all the nations of the
earth in a common crusade against the peculiar institutions of the
State and section of this Union represented by the senator from
South Carolina; and hlie unwittingly encourages it, by giving vent to
his rapturous joy over these copious and refreshing streams   itl
which England is irrigating the American intellect.  (Renewed ipplause in the galleries.)
TIUE PiiEsIbiNG OrrFFICERn (R. RUSK in the chair).-There must be
order in the galleries.  If there is not, they will be ordered to be
cleared. 19
67 
68     THE I IFE AND SPEECHES OF
MIR. ADAMS.-I desire to ask that the galleries may be cleared if
such an outrage occurs again.
MR. DOUCLAS.-I hope it will be done.  It is manifestly improI,er
to have such proceedings in the galleries.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER.-It certainly will be done, if the same
thing occurs again.
MR. BUTLEPR..-I have but one word to say in reply to the senator
from Illinois. When I spoke of our gratitude to England, I did not
allude to the sentimental kind of literature to which the senator refers. I thought I indicated the authors of the literature to which I
referred; and I do not thank the senator for going out of his way,
and indicating impure streams, as if they had a connection with my
remark, for there are impure streams flowing from other sources besides Great Britain; and there are impure examples in other parts
of the world besides Great Britain. When I spoke of it, I spoke in
emphlatic terms of those writers who have poured upon us what the
senator himself will not deny to be refreshing streams; what I hope
he will regard as refreshing to him, and to the intelligence of the
age.  I named authors.  Will he dissent from Burke?  Will he dissent from Chathamr?  Will he dissent from Shakspeate? Will he
dissent from the literature, and the eloquence, and the example, and
the tone of feeling of Hampden and Sidney?  Sir, when I spoke in
the spirit of a man judging the literature of England, I did not expect to be.diverted by this miserable allusion to "Uncle  Toln:'s
Cabin."  (Laughter.)  That may do for an ad captandum, but it is
not a manly mode of meeting what I said in relation to the literature
of England.
MB. DOUGLAS.-I spoke in terms of reverence and respect of the
monuments and tombstones which were found in England, to the
great men, to their patriotism, to their legal learning and science
and poetry, and a.ll that was great and noble and admirable.  I spoke
of them with respect as a matter of the past; but, sir, I do not think
it was a legitimate argument to go back two or three centuries past
to justify English aggressions in the present upon this continent;
and when I heard the laudations and eulogiumts upon past English
history in palliation of present English enormity, with commnendations upon the refreshing streams which she is now pouring into this
country to enlighten our people, I thought it was right and proper to
remind the senator himself of some of the present conduct of
England,  which should be borne in mind when  he pronounced
eulogies upon her conduct. I am talking of the present and its
bearing upon the future. It is that to which I am directing aiy
remarks and not to the past.
MR. BUTLERu.-I should like to know how England is to be responsible for "Uncle Tom's Cabin."  Is England the indorser of it'
I have alluded to the masterly intellects of England, and not to the
spurious, miserable, sickly sentimentality of the day. If such literature as that to which he alludes is to be taken as a standard, England 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
Is not the only place in which it is found. She is no more responsi ble for that miserable cant in relation to this subject than others.
But with regard to England, in all our commercial relations, in all
our connection with her as a civilized nation, I presume the honor able senator would not be disposed to postpone her to any other
any other nation.
MR. DOUGLAS.-I would neither postpone nor give her the preference. I have no eulogium to make upon her. I will treat her as our
duty as a nation requires.
MR. BUTLER.-I have pronounced no other eulogium than history
yields to her literature, commerce and civilization, and we are bound
to maintain our relations with England if we intend to be a civilized nation ourselves. I made no allusion to the kind of literature
which the senator has brought in debate. We can find this miserable
sentimentality anywhere, and there are many other things which the
senator might as well have brought in, which would have been as
pertinent to the debate.  He had better get up a discussion of the
Maine liquor law. (Laughter.) I do not see why he could not. It
has about as much connection with the question as the other.
MR. DOUGLAS.-I have introduced into this discussion none of
these extraneous-topics. I have contented myself with replying
when others have brought them forward and thrust them upon me.
My object has been to confine the debate to the points at issue between the senator from Delaware and myvself, and I have not departed from that line except when compelled to do so by the remarks
of others.
The discussion having been continued on subsequent days
by Mr. Clayton and Mr. Everett, Mr. Douglas closed the
debate with the following remarks:
MR. PRESIDENT: I do not intend to prolong the discussion; but I
think it due to myself and the occasion to make a word of comment
upon one remark which fell from the eminent senator from Massachusetts.  I understood him to concur in the opinion expressed by
the senator from Delaware, that his letter in relation to Cuba, which
proclaimed the principle that no pledge was to be made by this government in regard to the future condition of that island, was not
applicable to the Central American states.  I cannot consent, even
for the sake of harmonizing the political relations of those two senators, to be placed in a false position. I am not willing, even by their
concurrence, to be put in a position of having made a misapplication
of that letter. The main point to which I referred in the letter of
Mr. Everett to the Comte de Sartiges was the denial of any constitutional power in this government to make the pledge, that in all
,,omiiig time we would not acquire mny territory which, in the course
69 
70     THE LIFE &ND SPEECHES OF
of events, might become desirable and necessary. If it was not. fompetent under the Constitution to make such a stipulation in refei nnce
to the island of Cuba, where does he find the c6nstitutional autht rity
to make it in the Clayton and Bulwer treaty in respect to Cet tral
America? If there be a want of constitutional power in the one
case, does not the same absence of authority exist in the other,,nd
should it not be equally binding upon the consciences of men in all
cases?  Therefore, until they remove that constitutional barrier, I
cannot permit those two senators to place themselves upon a common platform, and accuse me of having made a misapplication of
the letter to the French minister. The senator from Delaware has
asserted the existence of the power, and exercised it in the Clayton
and Bulwer treaty, while the senator from Massachusetts has denied
its existence in the official dispatch to which I have referred. That
is all I desired to say on that point.
So far as the senator's remarks relate to the preservation of peace,
I fully and cordially agree with him. If there is any one line of
policy more dear to my heart than all others, it is that which shall
avoid any just cause of war, and preserve peace in all time to come.
If there be a difference of opinion between us, it is upon the point as
to which line of policy will best accomplish that object: I believe
that the true policy is to make no pledges at present which are to
hind our successors in all time to come with reference to a state of
facts which now does not exist, but then may require action. I have
not said that I wish to annex any portion of Central America to this
country. I only protest against the pledge that our successors shall
not do that which their interest, duty and honor may require when
the time for action comes.  With these remarks, I am willing to
dlose the disousion. 
STEPIIEN A. DOUGLAS. 
ON THE NEBRASKA TERRITORY.
.Delvered in the Senate, January 30, 1854.
The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to the con.
ideration of the bill to organize the Territory of Nebraska.
MR. DOUGLAS.-Mr. President, when I proposed, on Tuesday last,
that the Senate should proceed to the consideration of the bill to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas, it was my purpose
only to occupy ten or fifteen minutes in explanation of its provisions.
I desired to refer to two points; first to those provisions relating to
the Indians, and second to those which might be supposed to bear
upon the question of slavery.
The committee, in drafting the bill, had in view the great anxiety
which had been expressed by some members of the Senate to protect
the rights of the Indians, and to prevent infringements upon them.
By the provisions of the bill, I think we had so clearly succeeded, in
that respect, as to obviate all possible objection upon that score. The
bill itself provides that it shall not operate upon any of the rights or
lands of the Indians, nor shall they be included within the limits of
those Territories, until they shall, by treaty with the United States,
expressly consent to come under the operations of the act, and be
incorporated within the limits of the Territories. This provision certainly is broad enough, clear enough, explicit enough, to protect all
the rights of the Indians as to their persons and their property.
Upon the other point, that pertaining to the question of slavery in
the Territories, it was the intention of the committee to be equally
explicit. We took the principles established by the Compromise acts
of 1850 as our guide, and intended to make each and every provision
of the bill accord With those principles. Those measures established
and rest upon the principles of self-government, that the people
should be allowed to decide the question of their domestic institutions for themselves, subject only to such limitations and restrictions
as are imposed by the Constitution of the United States, instead of
having them determined by an arbitrary or geographical line.
The original bill, reported by the committee as a substitute for the
bill introduced by the senator from Iowa (Mr. Dogde), was believed
to have accomplished this object.  The amendment which was subsequently reported by us was only designed to render that clear and
specific, which seemed, in the minds of some, to admit of doubt and
misconstruction. In some parts of the country the original substitute was deemed and construed to be an annulment or a repeal of
what has been known as the Missouri Compromise, while in other
parts it was otherwise construed. As the object of the committee
was to conform to the principles established by the Compromise
measures of 1850, and to carry those principles into effect in the
71 
72 ~   THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
Territories, we thought it was better to recite in the bill precisely
what we understood to have been accomplished by those measures,
viz., that the Missouri Compromise, having been superseded by the
legislation of 1850, has become and ought to be declared inoperative;
and hence we propose to leave the question to the people of the
States and the Territories, subject only to the limitations and provisions of the Constitution.
Sir, this is all that I intended to say, if the question had been
taken up for consideration on Tuesday last; but since that time oc currences have transpired which compel me to go more fully into
the discussion. It will be borne in mind that the senator from Ohio
(Mr. Chase) then objected to the consideration of the bill, and
asked for its postponement until this day, on the ground that there
had not been time to understand and consider its provisions; and
the senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner) suggested that the
postponement should be for one week for that purpose. These sug gestions seeming to be reasonable, in the opinions of senators
around me, I yielded to their request, and consented to the post ponement of the bill until this day.
Sir, little did I suppose, at the time that I granted that act of
courtesy to those two senators, that they had drafted and published
to the world a document, over their own signatures, in which they
arraigned me as having been guilty of a criminal betrayal of my
trust, as having been guilty of an act of bad faith and been engaged
in an atrocious plot against the cause of free government. Little
did I suppose that these two senators had been guilty of such con duct when they called upon me to grant that courtesy, to give them
an opportunity of investigating the substitute reported by the com mittee.  I have since discovered that on that very morning the "Na tionel Era," the abolition organ in this city, contained an address,
signed by certain abolition confederates, to the people, in which the
bill is grossly misrepresented, in which the action of the committee
is grossly perverted, in which our motives are arraigned and our
characters calumniated. And, sir, what is more, I find that there
was a postscript added to the address, published that very morning,
in which the principal amendment reported by the committee was
set out, and then coarse epithets applied to me by name.-  Sir, had
I known those facts at the time that I granted that act of indulgence,
I should have responded to the request of those senators in such
terms as their conduct deserved, so far as the rules of the Senate and
a respect for my own character would have permitted me to do. In
order to show the character of this document, of which I shall have
much to say in the course of my argument, I will read certain pas sages:
"We arraign this bill as a gross violation of a sacred pledge; as a criminal
betrayal of precious rights; as part and parcel of an atrocious plot to exclude
froma vast unoccupied region emigrants from the Old World, and free laborers
from our own States and convert it into a dreary region of despotism., inhabited
by masters and slave" 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
A SEN.ATOR.-By whom is-the address signed?
MR. I)OUGLAS.-It is signed "S. P. Chase, senator from Ohio,
Charles Sumner, senator from Massschusetts; J. R. Giddings and
Edward Wade, representatives from Ohio; Gerrit Smith, representative from New York; Alexander De Witt, representative from
Massachusetts;" including, as I understand, all the abolition party in
Congress.
Then, speaking of the Committee on Territories, these confederates
use this language:
"The pretences, therefore, that the Territory, covered by tlih positive prohi
bition of 1820, sustains a similar relation to slavery with that acquired from
Mexico, covered by no prohibition except that of disputed constitutional or
Mexican law, and that the compromises of 1850 require the incorporation of
the pro-slavery clauses of the Utah and New Mexico Bill in the Nebraska Act
are mere inventions, designed to cover up from public reprehension meditated bay
faith."
"Mere inventions to cover up bad faith." Again:
"Servile demagogues may tell you that the Union can be maintained onl'
by submitting to the demands of slavery."
Then there is a postscript added, equally offensive to myself, in
which I am mentioned by name. The address goes on to make an
appeal to the legislatures of the different States, to public meetings,
and to ministers of the Gospel in their pulpits, to interpose and
arrest the vile proceeding which is about to be consummated by
the senators who are thus denounced. That address, sir, bears date
Sunday, January 22, 1854. Thus it appears that, on the holy Sabbath, while other senators were engaged in divine worship, these
abolition confederates were assembled in secret conclave, plotting by
what means they should deceive the people of the United States, and
prostrate the character of brother senators. This was done on the
Sabbath day, and by a set of politicians, to advance their own political and ambitious purposes, in the name of our holy religion.
But this is not all. It was understood from newspapers that resolutions were pending before the legislature of Ohio proposing to
express their opinions upon this subject. It was necessary for these
confederates to get up some exposition of the question by which they
might facilitate the passage of the resolutions through that legisla
ture.  Hence you find that, on the same morning that this documean
appears over the names of these confederates in the abolition organ
of this city, the same document appears in the New York papers —
certainly in the'1 Tribune," "Times" and "Evening Post "-in
which it is stated, by authority, that it is "signed by the senators
and a majority of the representatives from the State of Ohio "-a
statement which I have every reason to believe was utterly false, and
known to be so at the time that these confederates appended it to
the address. It was necessary, in order to carty o-it this work ol
7',',
a 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
deception, and to hasten the action of the Ohio legislature, under a
misapprehension of the real facts, to state that it was signed, not
only by the abolition confederates, but by the whole Whig representation, and a portion of the Democratic representation in the other
house from the State of Ohio.
MR. CHASE.-Mr. President
MR. DOUGLAS.-Mr. President, I do not yield the floor.  A senator
who has violated all the rules of courtesy and propriety, who showed
a consciousness of the character of the act he was doing by concealing from me all knowledge of the fact-who came to me with a
smiling face, and the appearance of friendship, even after that document had been uttered-wh, could get up in the Senate and appeal
to my courtesy in order to get time to give the document a wider
circulation before its infamy could be exposed; such a senator has
no right to my courtesy upon this floor.
MR. CHASE. -Mr. President, the senator mistates the facts      -
MR. DOUGLAS. —Mr. President, I decline to yield the floor.
MR. CHASE.-And I shall make my denial pertinent when the time
comes.
THE PREsIDEzT.-Order I
MR. DOUGLAS.-Sir, if the senator does interpose, in violation of
the rules of the Senate, a denial of the fact, it may be that I shall be
able to nail that denial, as I shall the statements in this address
which are over his own signature, as a wicked fabrication, and prove
it by the solemn legislation of this country.
MR. CHASE.-I call the-senator to order.
THE PRESIDENT.-The senator from Illinois is certainly out of
order.
MR. DoUGLAs.-Then I will only say that I shall confine myself to
this document, and prove its statements to be false by the legislation of the country. Certainly that is in order.
MR. CHASE.-You cannot do it.
MR. DOUGLAS.-The argument of this manifesto is predicated upon
the assumption that the policy of the fathers of the republic was to
prohibit slavery in all the territory ceded by the old States to the
Union, and made United States territory, for the purpose of being
organized into new States. I take issue upon that statement. Such
was not the practice in the early history of the government. It is
true that in the territory northwest of the Ohio River slavery was
prohibited by the Ordinance of 1787; but it is also true that in the
territory south of the Ohio River, slavery was permitted and protected; and it is also true that in the organization of the Territory
of Mississippi, in 1798, the provisions of the Ordinance of 1787 were
applied to it, with the exception of the sixth article, which prohibited
slavery. Then, sir, you find upon the statute-books under Washington and the early Presidents, provisions of law showing that in the
southwestern territories the right to hold slaves was clearly implied
or recognized, wh;.'e in the northwest territories it was prohibited.
74 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
The only conclusion that can be fairly and honestly drawn from that
legislation is, that it was the policy of the fathers of the republic to
prescribe a line of demarkation between free Territories and slaveholding Territories by a natural or a geographical line, being sure to
make that line correspond, as near as might be, to the laws of climate, of production, and all those other causes that woula control
the institutions and make it either desirable or undesirable to the
people inhabiting the respective Territories.
Sir, I wish you to bear in mind, too, that this geographical line,
established by the founders of the republic between free Territories
and slave Territories, extended as far westward as our territory then
reached; the object being to avoid all agitation upon the slavery
question by settling that question forever, as far as our territory
extended, which was then to the Mississippi River.
When, in 1803, we acquired from France the territory known as
I ouisiana, it became necessary to legislate for the protection of the
inhabitants residing therein. It will be seen, by looking into the
bill establishing the Territorial government in 1805 for the Territory
of New Orleans, embracing the same country now known as the
State of Louisiana, that the Ordinance of 1787 was expressly extended to that Territory, except the sixth section, which prohibited
slavery.  That act implied that the Territory of New Orleans was
to be a slaveholding Territory by making that exception in the law.
But, sir, when they came to form what was then called the Territory
of Louisiana, subsequently known as the Territory of Missouri,
north of the thirty-third parallel, they used different language. They
did not extend to it any of the provisions of the Ordinance of 1787.
They first provided that it should be governed by laws made by the
governor and the judges, and, when in 1812 Congress gave to that
Territory, under the name of the Territory of-Missouri, a Territorial
government, the people were allowed to do as they pleased upon the
subject of slavery, subject only to the limitations of the Constitution
of the United States. Now what is the inference from that legislation? That slavery was, by implication, recognized south of the
thirty-third parallel; and north of that the people were left to exercise their own judgment and do as they pleased upon the subject,
without any implication for or against the existence of the institu
tion.
This continued to be the condition of the country in the Missouri
Territory up to 1820, when the celebrated act which is now called
the Missouri Compromise was passed. Slavery did not exist in,
nor was it excluded from, the country now known as Nebraska There
was no code of laws upon the subject of slavery either way: First,
for the reason that slavery had never been introduced into Louisiana
and established by positive enactment. It had grown up there by a
sort of common law, and been supported and protected When a
common law grows up, when an institution becomes established
under a usage, it carries it so far as that usage actuall goes, and na
75 
76     THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
further. If it had been established by direct enactment, it might
have carried it so far as the political jurisdiction extended; but, be
that as it may, by the act of 1812, creating the Territory of Missouri,
that Territory was allowed to legislate upon the subject of slavery
as it saw proper, subject only to the limitations which I have stated;
and the country not inhabited or thrown open to settlement was set
apart as Indian country, and rendered subject to Indian laws.
Hence, the local legislation of the State of Missouri did not reach
into that Indian country, but was excluded from it by the Indian
code and Indian laws. The municipal regulations of Missouri could
not go there until the Indian title had been extinguished, and the
country thrown open to settlement.  Such being the case, the orly
legislation in existence in Nebraska Territory at the time that the
Missouri act passed, namely, the 6th of March, 1820, was a provision,
in effect, that the people should be allowed to do as they pleased
upon the subject of slavery.
The Territory of Missouri having been left in that legal condition,
positive opposition was made to the bill to organize a State government, with a view to its admission into the Union; and a senator
from my State, Mr. Jesse B. Thomas,  introduced an amendment,
known as the eighth section of the bill, in which it was provided that
slavery should be prohibited north of 36~ 30' north latitude, in all the
country which we had acquired from France. What was the object
of the enactment of that eighth section? Was it not to go back to
the original policy of prescribing boundaries to the limitation of frce
institutions, and of slave institutions, by a geographical line, in order
to avoid all controversy in Congress upon the subject? Hence they
extended that geographical line through all the territory purchased
from France, which was as far as our possessions then reached. It
was not simply to settle the question on that piece of country, but it
was to carry out a great principle, by extending that dividing line
as far west as our territory went, and running it onward on each
new acquisition of territory.  True, the express enactment of the
eighth section of the Missouri act, now called the Missouri Compromise, only covered the territory acquired from France; but the
principles of the act, the objects of its adoption, the reasons in its
support, required that it shopld be extended indefinitely westward,
so far as our territory might go, whenever new purchases should be
made.
Thus stood the question up to 1845, when the joint resolution for
the annexation of Texas passed.  There was inserted in that joint resolution a provision, suggested in the first instance and brought before the House of Representatives by myself, extending the Missouri
Compromise line indefinitely westward through the Territory of
Texas. Why did I bring forward that proposition? Why did the
Congress of the United States adopt it? Not because it was of the
least practical importance, so far as the question of slavery witLin
the limits of Texas was concerned; for no man ever dreamed that it 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
had any practical effect there. Then why was it brought forward I
It was for the purpose of preserving the principle, in order that it
might be extended still further westward, even to the Pacific Ocean,
whenever we should acquire the country that far. I will here read
that clause. It is the third article, second section, and is in these
words:
" New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition
to-said State of Texas having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled
to admission under the provisions of the federal Constitution. And such States
as may be formed out of that portion of said Territory lyingsouth of thirty-six
degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the
people of each State asking admission may desire. And, in such State or
States as shall be formed out of said Territory north of said Missouri Compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prhibited."
It will be seen that it contains a very remarkable provision, which
is, that when States lying north of 36~ 30' apply for admission
slavery shall be prohibited in their constitutions. I presume no one
pretends that Congress could have power thus to fetter a State applying for admission into this Union; but it was necessary to preserve the principle of the Missouri Compromise line, in order that it
might afterward be extended; and it was supposed that while Congress had no power to impose any such limitation, yet, as that was a
compact with the State of Texas, that State could consent for herself that, when any portion of her own Territory, subject to her own
jurisdiction and control, applied for admission, her constitution
should be in a particular form; but that provision would not be
binding on the new State one day after it was admitted into the
Union. The other provision was that such States as should lie south
of 36~ 30' should come into the Union with or without slavery, as
each should decide in its constitution.   Then, by that act, the
Missouri Compromise was extended indefinitely westward, so far as
the State of Texas went, that is, to the Rio del Norte; for our Gov
ernment at that time recognized the Rio del Norte as its boundary
We recognized, in many ways, and among them by even paying
Texas for it ten millions of dollars, in order that it might be included in and form a portion of the Territory of New Mexico.
Then, sir, in 1848, we acquired from Mexico the country between
the Rio del Norte and the Pacific Ocean. Immediately after that acquisition, the Senate, on my own motion, voted into a bill a provision to extend the Missouri Compromise indefinitely westward to the
Pacific Ocean, in the same sense and with the same understanding
with which it was originally adopted. That provision passed this
body by a decided majority, I think by ten at least, and went to the
House of Representatives, and was defeated there by northern votes.
Now, sir, let us pause and consider for a moment. The first time
77 
78     THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
that the principles of the Missouri Compromise were ever abandcieat,
the first time they were ever rejected by Congress, was by the defeat
of that provision in the House of Representatives in 1848. By
whom was that defeat effected? By northern votes with Freesoil
proclivities.  It was the defeat of that Missouri Compromise that
reopened the slavery agitation with all its fury. It was the defeat
of that Missouri Compromise that created the tremendous struggle
of 1850.  It was the defeat of that Missouri Compromise that
created the necessity for making a new compromise in 1850. Had
we been faithful to the principles of the Missouri Compromise in
1848, this question would not have arisen. Who was it that was
faithless? I undertake to say it was the very men who now insist
that the Missouri Compromise was a solemn compact, and should
never be violated or departed from. Every man who is now assail ing the principle of the bill under consideration, so far as I am ad vised, was opposed to the Missouri Compromise in 1848. The very
men who now arraign me for a departure from the Missouri Com promise are the men who successfully violated it, repudiated it, and
caused it to be superseded by the Compromise measures of 1850.
Sir, it is with rather bad grace that the men who proved faithless
themselves, should charge upon me and others, who were ever faithful, the responsibilities and consequences of their own treachery.
Then, sir, as I before remarked, the defeat of the Missouri Compromise in 1848 having created the necessity for the establishment
of a new one in 1850, let us see what that compromise was.
The leading feature of-the Compromise of 1850 was Congressional
non-intervention as to slavery in the Territories; that the people of
the Territories, and of all the States, were to be allowed to do as
they pleased upon the subject of slavery, subject only to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States.
That, sfr, was the leading feature of the Compromise measures of
1850. Those measures, therefore, abandoned the idea of a geographical line as the boundary between free States and slave States;
abandoned it because compelled to do it from an inability to maintain it; and in lieu of that, substituted a great principle of selfgovernment, which would allow the people to do as they thought
proper. Now the question is, when that new compromise, resting
upon that great fundamental principle of freedom, was established.
was it not an abandonment of the old one-the geographical line?
Was it not a supersedure of the old one within the very language of
the substitute for the bill which is now under consideration? I say
it did supersede it, because it applied its provisions as well to the
north as to the south of 36~ 30'. It established a principle which
was equally applicable to the country north as well as south of the
parallel of 36~ 30'-a principle of universal application.   The
authors of this abolition manifesto attempted to refute this presumption, and maintain that the Compromise of 1850 did not superwede that of 1820, by quoting the proviso to the first section of th( 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
act to establish the Texan boundary, and create the Territory of
New Mexico. That proviso was added, by way of amendment, on
motion of Mr. Mason, of Virginia.
I repeat, that in order to rebut the presumption, as I before
stated, that the Missouri Compromise was abandoned and superseded by the principles of the Compromise of 1850, these confederates cite the following amendment, offered to the bill to establish
the boundary of Texas and create the Territory of New Mexico in
1850:
"Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to impair or
qualify anything contained in the third article of the second section of the
joint resolution for annexing Texas to the United States, approved March 1,
1845, either as regards the number of States that may hereafter be formed out
of the States of Texas or otherwise."
After quoting this proviso, they make the following statement,
and attempt to gain credit for its truth by suppressing material facts
which appear upon the face of the same statute, and which, if produced, would conclusively disprove the statement:
"It is solemnly declared in the very compromise acts,' that nothing herein
contained shall be construed to impair or qualify the prohibition of slavery north
of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes;' and yet, in the face of this declaration,
that sacred prohibition is said to be overthrown. Can presumption further
go?"
I will now proceed to show that presumption could not go further than is exhibited in this declaration
They suppress the following material facts, which, if produced,
would have disproved their statement. They first suppress the fact
that the same section of the act cuts off from Texas, and cedes to
the United States all that part of Texas which lies north of 86o 30'.
They then suppress the further fact that the same section of the
law cuts off from Texas a large tract of country on the west, more
than three degrees of longitude, and adds it to the territory of the
United States. They then suppress the further fact that this territory thus cut off from Texas, and to which the Missouri Compromise
line applied, was incorporated into the Territory of New Mexico.
And then what was done? It was incorporated into that Territory
with this clause:
" That, when admitted as a State, the said Territory, or any portion of th.
same, shall be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their sonstitution may prescribe at the time of its adoption."
Yes, sir, the very bill and section from which they quote, cuts off
all that part of Texas which was to be free by the Missouri Compro.
mise, together with some on the south side of the line, incorporates
it into the Territory of New Mexico, and then says that the Torri
79 
80     THE LIFE AND SPEECIIES OF
tory, and every portion of the same, shall come into the Union wita
or without slavery, as it sees proper.
What else does it do? The sixth section of the same act provides
that the legislative power and authority of this said Territory of
New Mexico shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation con
sistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions
of the act, not excepting slavery. Thus the New Mexican Bill,
from which they make that quotation, contains the provision that
New Mexico, including that part of Texas which was cut off, should
come into the Union with or without slavery, as it saw proper; arid
in the meantime that the Territorial legislature should have all the
authority over the subject of slavery that they had over any other
subject, restricted only by the limitation of the Constitution of the
United States and the provisions of the act.  Now, I ask those
senators, do not those provisions repeal the Missouri Compromise,
so far as it applied to the country cut off from Texas?  Do they not
annul it? Do they not-supersede it? If they do, then the address
which has been put forth to the world by these confederates is an
atrocious falsehood.  If they do not, then what do they mean when
they charge me with having, in the substitute first reported from
the committee, repealed it, with having annulled it, with having
violated it, when I only copied those precise words? I copied the
precise words into my bill, as reported from the committee, which
were contained in the New Mexico Bill. They say my bill annuls
the Missouri Compromise.  If it does, it had already been done be fore by the act of 1850; for these words were copied from the act
of 1850.
MR. WADE.-Why did you do it over again?
MR. DOUaLAS.-I will come to that point presently.  I am now
dealing with the truth and veracity of a combination of men who
have assembled in secret caucus upon the Sabbath day, to arraign
my conduct and belie my motives.  I say, therefore, that their
manifesto is a slander either way; for it says that the Missouri
Compromise was not superseded by the measures of 1850, and then
it says that the same words in my bill do repeal and annul it.
They must be adjudged guilty of one falsehood in order to sustain
the other assertion.
Now, sir, I propose to go a little further, and show what was the
real meaning of the amendment of the senator from Virginia, out
of which these gentlemen have manufactured so much capital in
the newspaper press, and have succeeded by that misrepresentation
in procuring an expression of opinion from the State of Rhode
Island in opposition to this bill. I will state what its meaning is.
Did it mean that the States north of 36~ 30' should have a clause
in their constitutions prohibiting slavery? I have shown that it
did not mean that, because the same act says that they might come
in with slavery, if they saw proper. I say it could not mean that
for another reason: The same section containing that, proviso cut 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLBAS.
off all that part of Texas north of 36~ 30', and hence there was
nothing for it to operate upon. It did not, therefore, relate to the
country cut off. What did it relate to? Why, it meant siinj,ly
this: By the joint resolution of 1845, Texas was annexed, with ttle
right to form four additional States out of her territory; and such
States as were south of 36~ 30' were to come in with or without
slavery, as they saw proper; and in such State or States as were
north of that line, slavery should be prohibited. When we had cut
off all north of 36~ 80', and thus circumscribed the boundary and
diminished the territory of Texas, the question arose, how many
States will Texas be entitled to under this circumscribed boundary.
Certainly not four, it will be argued. Why? Because the original
resolution of annexation provided that one of the States, if not
more, should be north of 36~ 30'. It would leave it, then, doubtful
whether Texas was entitled to two or three additional States under
the circumscribed boundary.
In order to put that matter to rest, in order to make a final settlement, in order to have it explicitly understood what was the
meaning of Congress, the senator from Virginia offered the amendment that nothing therein contained should impair that provision,
either as to the number of States or otherwise, that is, that Texas
should be entitled to the same number of States with her reduced
boundaries as she would have been entitled to under her larger
boundaries; and those States shall come in with or without slavery,
as they might prefer, being all south of 36~ 30', and nothing to impair that right shall be inferred from the passage of the act. Such,
sir, was the meaning of that proposition. Any other construction
of it would stultify the very character and purpose of its mover,
the senator from Virginia.  Such, then, was not only the intent of
the mover, but such is the legal effect of the law; and I say that
no man, after reading the other sections of the bill, those to which
I have referred, can doubt that such was both the intent and the
legal effect of that law.
Then I submit to the Senate if I have not convicted this manifesto, issued by the abolition confederates, of being a gross falsification of the laws of the land, and by that falsification that an
erroneous and injurious impression has been created upon the public mind. I am sorry to be compelled to indulge in language of
severity; but there is no other language that is adequate to express
the indignation with which I see this attempt, not only to mislead
the public, but to malign my character by deliberate falsification of
the public statutes and the public records.
In order to give greater plausibility to the falsification of the
terms of the Compromise measures of 1850, the confederates also
declare in their manifesto that they (the Territorial bills for the organization of Utah and New  Mexico) "applied  to the territory
acquired from Mexico, and to that only.  They were intended as a
settlement of the controversy growing out of that acquisition, and
81 
82     THE LIFE AND SPEECHES ON
of that 2ontroversy only.  They must stand or:fall by their owti
merits."
I submit to the Senate if there is an intelligent man in Am(erica
who does not know that that declaration is falsified by the statute
from which they quoted. They say that the provisions of that biL
was confined to the territory acquired from Mexico, when the very
section of the law from which they quoted that proviso did pur
chase a part of that very territory from the State of Texas. And
the next section of the law included that territory in the Territory
of New Mexico. It took a small portion also of the old Louisiana
purchase, and added that to the Territory of New Mexico, and made
up the rest out of the Mexican acquisitions.  Then, sit, your statutes
show, when applied to the map of the country, that the Territory
of New Mexico was composed of country acquired from Mexico,
and also of territory acquired from Texas, and of territory acquired
from France; and yet in defiance of that statute, and in falsification
of its terms, we are told, in order to deceive the people, that the
bills were confined to the purchase made from Mexico alone; and
in order to give it greater solemnity, they repeat it twice, fearing
that it would not be believed the first time. What is more, the
Territory of Utah was not confined to the country acquired from
Mexico. That Territory, as is well known to every man who understands the geography of the country, includes a large tract of rich
and fertile country acquired from France in 1803, and( to which the
eighth section of the Missouri Act applied in 1820. If these confederates do not know to what country I allude, I only reply that
they should have known before they uttered the falsehood, and imputed a crime to me.
But I will tell you to what country I allude. By the treaty of
1819, by which we acquired Florida and a fixed boundary between
the United States and Spain, the boundary was made of the Arkansas River to its source, and then the line ran due north of the source
of the Arkansas to the 42d parallel, then along on the 42d parallel.
to the Pacific Ocean. That line, due north from the head of the
Arkansas, leaves the whole middle part, described in such glowing
terms by Colonel Fremont, to the east of the line, and hence a part
of the Louisiana purchase. Yet, inasmuch as that middle part is
drained by the waters flowing into the Colorado, when we formed
the territorial limits of Utah, instead of running that air-line, we
ran along the ridge of the mountains, and cut off that part fromi
Nebraska, or from the Louisiana purchase, and included it within
the limits of the Territory of Utah.
Why did we do it? Because we sought for a natural and convenient boundary, and it was deemed better to take the mountains as
a boundary, than by an air-line to cut the valleys on one side of the
mountains, and annex them to the country on the other side. And
why did we take these natural boundaries, setting at defiance the
old boundaries? The simple reason was that so long as M i acted
I 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
upon the principle of settling the slave question by a ge graphical
line, so long we observed those boundaries strictly and rigidly; but
when that was abandoned, in consequence of the action of freesoilers and abolitionists-when it was superseded by the Compromise
measures of 1850, which rested upon a great universal principlethere was no necessity for keeping in view the old and unnatural
boundary. For that reason, in making the new Territories, we
formed natural boundaries, irrespective of the source whence our
title was derived. In writing these bills I paid no attention to the
fact whether the title was acquired from Louisiana, from France, or
from Mexico; for what difference did it make? The principle which'
we had established in the bill would apply equallyf well to either.
In fixing those boundaries, I paid no attention to the fact whether
they included old territory or new territory-whether the country
was covered by the Missouri Compromise or not. Why? Because
the principles established in the bills superseded the Missouri Compromise. For that reason we disregarded the old boundaries; disregarded the territory to which it applied, and. disregarded the
source from whence the title was derived. I say, therefore, that a
close examination of those acts clearly establishes the fact that it
was the intent, as well as the legal effect of the Compromise measures of 1850, to supersede the Missouri Compromise, and all geographical and territorial lines.
Sir, in order to avoid any misconstruction, I will state more
distinctly what my precise idea is upon this point. So far as the
Utah and New Mexico bills included the territory which had been
subject to the Missouri Compromise provision, to that extent they
absolutely annulled the Missouri Compromise. As to the unorganized territory not covered by those bills, it was superseded by
the principles of the Compromise of 1850.  We all know that the
object of the Compromise measures of 1850 was to establish certain
great principles, which would avoid the slavery agitation in all time
to come. Was it our object simply to provide for a temporary evil 
Was it our object to heal over an old sore, and leave it to break out
again? Was it our object to adopt a mere miserable expedient to
apply to that territory, and to that alone, and leave ourselves
entirely at sea, without compass, when new territory was acquired,
or new territorial organizations were to be made? -
Was that the object for which the eminent and venerable senator
from Kentucky (lr. Clay) came here and sacrificed even his last
energies upon the altar of his country? Was that the object for
which Webster, Clay, Cass, and all the patriots of that day, strug.
gled so long and so strenuously? Was it merely the application of
a temporary expedient, in agreeing to stand by past and dead legislation, that the Baltimore platform pledged us to sustain the Compromise of 1850? Was it the understanding of the Whig party,
when they adopted the Compromise measures of 1850 as an article
of political ifaith, that they were only agreeing to that which was
20
83 
84     THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
past, and had no reference to the future? If that was their mean  ing; if that was their object, they palmed off an atrocious fraud
upon the American people. Was it the meaning of the Democratio
party, when we pledged ourselves to stand by the Compromise of
1850, that we spoke only of the past, and had no reference to the
future? If so, it was a gross deception. When we pledged our
President to stand by the Compromise measures, did we not under  stand that we pledged him as to his future action? Was it as to his
past conduct? If it had been in relation to past conduct only, the
pledge would have been untrue as to a very large portion of the
Democratic party.  Men went into that convention who had been
opposed to the Compromise measures-men who abhorred those
measures when they Were pending-men who never would have
voted affirmatively on them.  But, inasmuch as those measures had
been passed and the country had acquiesced in them, and it was im portant to preserve the principle in order to avoid agitation in
the future, these men said, we waive our past objections, and we
will stand by you and with you in carrying out these principles in
the future.
Such I understand to be the meaning of the two great parties at
Baltimore.   Such I understand to have been the effect of their
pledges. If they did not mean this, they meant merely to adopt
resolutions which were never to be carried out, and which were
designed -'to mislead and deceive the people for the mere purpose of
carrying an election.
I hold, then, that, as to the territory covered by the Utah and
New Mexico bills, there was an express annulment of the Missouri
Compromise; and as to all the other unorganized territories, it was
superseded by the principles of that legislation, and we are bound to
apply those principles to the organization of all new territories, to
all which we now own, or which we may hereafter acquire. If this
construction be given, it makes that compromise a final adjustment.
No other construction can possibly impart finality to it. By any
other construction, the question is to be reu.pxned the moment you
ratify a new treaty acquiring an inch of country from Mexico. By
any other construction, you reopen the issue every time you make
a new Territorial government. But, sir, if you treat the Compromise measures of 1850 in the light of great principles, sufficient to
remedy temporary evils, at the same time that they prescribe rules
of action applicable everywhere in all time to come, then you avoid
the agitation forever, if you observe good faith to the provisions
of these enactments. and the principles established by them.
Mr. President, I repeat that, so far as the question of slavery is
concerned, there is nothing in the bill under consideration which
does not carry out the principle of the Compromise measures of
1850, by leaving the people to do as they please, subject only. to the
provisions of the Constitution of the United States. If that principle is wrong, the bill is-wrong. If that principle is right, the bill is 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 
right. It is unnecessary to quiblle about phraseology or words; it
is not the mere words, the mere phraseology, that our constituents
wish to judge by. They wish to know the legal effect of Our legislation.
The legal effect of this bill, if it be passed as reported by the
Committee on Territories, is neither to legislate slavery into these
Territories nor out of them, but to leave the people to do as they
please, under the provisions and subject to the limitations of the
Constitution of the United States.  Why should not this principle
prevail? Why should any man, North or South, object to it? I
will especially address the argument to my own section of country,
and ask why should any northern man object to this principle? If
you will review the history of the slavery question in the United
States, you will see that all the great resuilts in behalf of free institutions which have been worked out, have been accomplished by
the operation of this principle, and by it alone.
When these States were colonies of Great Britain, every one of
them was a slaveholding province. When the Constitution of the
United States was formed, twelve out of the thirteen were slaveholding States. Since that time six of those States have become
Lree.  How has this. been effected?  Was it by virtue of abolition
agitation in Congress?  Was it in obedience to the dictates of the
Federal Government? Not at all; but they have become free States
under the silent but sure and irresistible working of that great
principle of self-government which teaches every people to do that
which the interests of themselves and their posterity morally and
pecuniarily may require.
Under the operation of this principle, New Hampshire became
free, while South Carolina continued to hold slaves; Cotnecticut
abolished slavery, while Georgia held on to it; Rhode Island abandoned the institution, while Maryland preserved it; New York, New
Jersey and Pennsylvania abolished slavery, while Virginia, North
Carolina, and Kentucky retained it.  Did they do it at your bidding?  Did they do it at the dictation of the Federal Government?
Did they do it in obedience to any of your Wilmot Provisoes or Ordinances of'87?  Not at all; they did it by virtue of their rights as
freemen under the Constitution of the United States, to establish and
abolish such institutions as they thought their own good required.
Let me ask you, where have you succeeded in excluding slavery
by an act of Congress from one inch of the American soil? You
may tell me that you did it in the Northwest Territory by the Ordinance of 1787. I will show you by the history of the country that
you did not accomplish any such thing.  You prohibited slavery
there by law, but you did not exclude it in fact. Illinois was a part
of the Northwest Territory.  With the exception of a few French
and white settlements, it was a vast wilderness, filled with hostile
savages, when the Ordinance of 1787 was adopted.  Yet, sir, when
Illinois was organized into a Territorial government, it estab:ishe
8b 
86     THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
and p)rotected slavery, and maintained it in spite of your Ordinance
and in defiance of its express prohibition. It is a curious fact, that,
so long as Congress said the Territory of Illinois should not have
slavery, she actually had it; and on the very day when you withdrew your Congressional prohibition the people of Illinois, of their
own free will and accord, provided for a system.of emancipation.
Thus you did not succeed in Illinois Territory with your )rdinance
or your Wilmot Proviso, because the people there regarded it as an invasion of their rights. They regarded it as a usurpation on the part of
the Federal Government. They regarded it as violative of the great
principles of self-government, and they determined that they would
never submit even to have freedom so long as you forced it upon them.
Nor must it be said that slavery was abolished in the constitution
of Illinois in order to be admitted into the Union as a State, in compliance with the Ordinance of 1787; for they Eid no such thing. In
the Constitution with which the people of Illinr,,is were admitted into
Union, they absolutely violated, disregarded, sad repudiated your
Ordinance. The Ordinance said that slavery Sbould be forever prohibited in that country. The constitution witL which you received
them into the Union as a State provided that all slaves then in the
State should remain slaves for life, and that all persons born of slave
parents after a certain day should be free at a certain age, and that
all persons born in the State after a certain other day, should be free
from the time of their birth. Thus their State constitution, as well
as their Territorial legislation, repudiated your Ordinance. Illinois,
therefore, is a case in point to prove that whenever you have
attempted to dictate institutions to any part of the United States,
you have failed. The same is true, though not to the same extent,
with reference to the Territory of Indiana, where there were many
slaves during the time of its TerritL-ial existence, and I believe also
there were a few in the Territory of Ohio.
But, sir, these abolition confederates, in their manifesto, have also
referred to the wonderful results of their policy in the States of Iowa
and the Territory of Minnesota. Here, again, they happen to be in
fault as to the laws of the land.  The act to organize the Territory
of Iowa did not prohibit slavery, but the people of Iowa were
allowed to do as they pleased under the Territorial government; for
the sixth section of that act provided that the legislative authority
should extend to all rightful subjects of legislation except as to
the disposition of the public lands, and taxes in certain cases, but
not excepting slavery. It may, however, be said by some that
slavery was prohibited in Iowa by virtue of that clause in the Iowa
act which declared the laws of Wisconsin to be in force therein, in
asmuch as the Ordinance of 1787 was one of the laws of Wisconsin.
If, however, they say this, they defeat their object, because the very
clause which transfers the laws of Wisconsin to Iowa, and makes
them of force therein, also provides that those laws are subject to be
altered, modified, or repealed by the Territorial legislature of Iowa
I 
ISTEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
Iowa, therefore, was left to do as she pleased. Iowa, when she
came to form a constitution and State government, preparatory to
admission into the Union, considered the subject of free and slave
institutions calmly, dispassionately, without any restraint or dictation, and determined that it would be to the interest of her people in
their climate, and with their productions, to prohibit slavery; and
hence Iowa became a free State by virtue of this great principle of
allowing the people to do as they please} and not in obedience to any
federal command.
The abolitionists are also in the habit of referring to Oregon as
another instance of the triumph of their abolition policy. There
again they have overlooked or misrepresented the history of the
country. Sir, it is well known, or if it is not, it ought to be, that for
about twelve years yOu forgot to give Oregon any government or
any protection; and during that period the inhabitants of that
country established a government of their own, and by virtue of
their own laws, passed by their own representatives before you extended your jurisdiction over them, prohibited slavery by a unanimious vote. Slavery was prohibited there by the action of the people
themselves, and not by virtue of any legislation of Congress.
It is true that, in the midst of the tornado which swept over the
country in 1848 1849 and 1850, a provision was forced into the Oregon bill prohibiting slavery in that Territory; but that only goes to
show that the object of those who pressed it was not so much to
establish free institutions as to gain a political advantage by giving
an ascendency to their peculiar doctrines in the laws of the land;
for slavery having been already prohibited there, and no man proposing to establish it, what was the necessity for insulting the people
of Oregon by saying in your law that they should not do that whicb
they had unanimously said they did not wish to do? That was the
only effect Qf your legislation so far as the Territory of Oregon was
concerned.
How was it in regard to California? Every one of these abolition
confederates, who have thus arraigned me and the Committee on
Territories before the country, and have misrepresented our position,
predicted that unless Congress interposed by law, and prohibited
slavery in California, it would inevitably become a slaveholding
State.   Congress did not interfere;  Congress did not prohibit
slavery. There was no enactment upon the subject; but the people
formed a State constitution, and therein prohibited slavery.
MR. WELLEP.,-The vote was unanimous in the convention of California for prohibition.
MR. DOUGLAS.-So it was in regard to Utah and New Mexico.  In
1850, we who resisted any attempt to force institutions upon the
people of those Territories inconsistent with their wishes and their
right to decide for themselves, were denounced as slavery prol)agandists. Every one of us who was in favor of the Compromise measures of 1850 was arraigned for having advocated. pri'mc4iQ Ernsdo
87 
88      THE LIFE AND SPEECIHES OF
ing to introduce slavery into those Territories, and the people were
told, and made to believe, that, unless we prohibited it by act of
Congress, slavery would necessarily and inevitably be introduced
into these Territories.
Well, sir, we did establish the Territorial governments of Utah
and New Mexico without any prohibition. We gave to these abolitionists a full opportunity of proving whether their predictions
would prove true or false. Years have rolled round, and the result
is before us. The people there have not passed any law recognizing,
or establishing, or introducing, or protecting slavery in the Territories.
I know of but one Territory of the United States where slavery
does exist, and that one is where you have prohibited it by law;
and it is this very Nebraska country. In defiance of the eighth section of the act of 1820, in defiance of Congressional dictation, there
have been, not many, but a few slaves introduced.  I heard a minister of the Gospel the other day conversing with a member of the
Committee on Territories upon this subject. This preacher was
from that country, and a member put this question to him: " Have
you any negroes out there?"  He said there were a few held by the
Indians. I asked him if there were not some held by white men?
Hle said there were a few under peculiar circumstances, and he gave
an instance.  An abolition missionary, a very good man, had gone
there from Boston, and he took his wife with him.  He got out into
the country but could not get any help; hence he, being a kindhearted man, Went down to Missouri and gave $1,000 for a negro,
and took him up there as "help."  (Laughter.)  So, under peculiar
circumstances, when these freesoil and abolition preachers and missionaries go into the country, they can buy a negro for their own
use, but they do not like to allow any one else to do the same thing.
(Renewed laughter.) I suppose the fact of the matter is simply this:
there the people can get no servants-no "help," as they are called
in the section of country were I was born-and from the necessity of
the case, they must do the best they can, and for this reason a few
slaves have been taken there. I have no doubt that whether you
organize the Territory of Nebraska or not, this will continue for
some little time to come. It certainly does exist, and it will increase as long as the Missouri Compromise applies to the Territory;
and I suppose it will continue for a little while during their Territorial condition, whether a prohibition is inrposed or not. But
when settlers rush in-when labor becomes plenty, and therefore
cheap, in that climate, with its productions-it is worse than folly
to think of its being a slaveholding country. I do not believe there
is a mani in Congress who thinks it could be permanently a slaveholdinig country.  I have no idea that it could.  All I have to say
on that subject is, that, when you create them into a Territory, you
thereby acknowledge that they ought to be considered a distinct
political organization. And when you give them in addition a legis 
STEPHEN A DOUGLAS.
iature, jl'(hereby confess that they are competent to exercise the
powers of;egislatien.  If they wish slavery, they haLve a right to it.
If they do not want it, they will not have it, and you should not
t,tempt to force it upon them.
I do not like, I never did like, the system of legislation on ou0
part, by which a geographical line, in violation of the laws of nature
and climate and soil, and of the laws of God, should be run to establish institutions for a people contrary to their wishes; yet, out of s
regard for the peace and quiet of the country, out of respect for past
pledges, and out of a desire to adhere faithfully to all compromises,
I sustained the Missouri compromise so long as it was in force, and
advocated its extension to the Pacific ocean. Now, when that has
been abandoned, when it has been superseded, when a great principle of self-government has been substituted for it, I choose to cling
to that principle, and abide in good faith, not only by the letter, but
by the spirit of the last compromise.
Sir, I do not recognize the right of the abolitionists of this country to arraign me for being false to sacred pledges, as they have
done in their proclamations. Let them show when and where I
have ever proposed to violate a compact. I have proved that I
stood by the compact of 1820 and 1845, and proposed its continuance and observance in 1848. - I have proved that the freesoilers
and abolitionists were the guilty parties who violated that compromise then. I should like to compare notes with the abolition
confederates about adherence to compromises. When did they stand
by or approve of any one that was ever made?
Did not every abolitionist and freesoiler in America denounce the
Missouri Compromise in 1820? Did they not for years hunt down
ravenously, for his blood, every man who assisted in making that
compromise? Did they not in 1845, when Texas was annexed,
denounce all of us who went for the annexation of Texas, and for
the continuation of the Missouri Compromise line through it?  Did
they not, in 1848, denounce me as a slavery propagandist for standing by the principles of the Missouri Compromise, and proposing to
continue it to the Pacific Ocean? Did they not themselves violate
and repudiate it then?  Is not the charge of bad faith true as to
every abolitionist in America, instead of being true as to me and the
committee, and those who advocate this bill?
They talk about the bill being a violation of the-Compromise meaiure of 1850.  Who can show me a man in either house of Congress
who was in favor of those Compromise measures in 1850, and who is
not now in favor of leaving the people of Nebraska and Kansas to do as
they please upon the subject of slavery, according to the principle of
my bill? Is there one?  If so, I have not heard of him.  This tornado
has been raised by abolitionist, and abolitionists alone. They have made
an impression upon the public mind, in the way in which I have men
tioned, by a falsification of the law and the facts; and this whole
organization against the Compromise measures of 1850 is an abolition
89 
90    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
movement. I presume they had some hope of getting a few tender footed Imocrats into their plot; and, acting on what they supposed
they might do, they sent forth publicly to the world the falsehood
that their address was sighed by the senators and a majority of the
representatives from the State of Ohio; but when we come to
examine signatures, we find no one Whig there, no one Democrat
there; none but pure, unmitigated, unadulterated abolitionists.
Much effect, I know, has been produced by this circular, coming
as it does with the imposing title of a representation of a majority
of the Ohio delegation. What was the reason for its effect? Be cause the manner in which it was sent forth implied that all the
Whig members from that State had joined in it; that part of the
Demoozats had signed it; and then that the two abolitionists had
signed it, and that made a majority of the delegation. By this
mneans it frightened the Whig party and the Democracy in the State
of Ohio, because they supposed their own representatives and friends
had gone into this negro movement, when the fact turns out to be
that it was not signed by a single Whig or Democratic member from
Ohio.
Now, I ask the friends and the opponents of this measure to look
at it as it is. Is not the question involved the simple one, whether
the people of the Territories shall be allowed to do as they please
upon the question of slavery, subject only to the limitations of the
Constitution?  That is all the bill provides; and it does so in clear,
explicit and unequivocal terms. I know there are some men, Whigs
and Democrats, who, not willing to repudiate the Baltimore platform of their own party, would be willing to vote for this principle,
provided they could do so in such equivocal terms that they could
deny that it means what it was intended to mean in certain localities.
I do not wish to deal in any equivocal language. If the principle is
right, let it be avowed and maintained. If it is wrong, let it be
repudiated. Let all this quibbling about the Missouri Compromise,
about the territory acquired from France, about the act of 1820, be
cast behind you; for the simple question is, will you allow the people to legislate for themselves upon the subject of slavery? Why
should you not?
When you propose to give them a Territorial government, do you
not acknowledge that they ought to be erected into a political organization; and when you give them a legislature, do you not acknowledge that they are capable of self-government? Having made that
acknowledgment, why should you not allow them to exercise the
rights of legislation? Oh, these abolitionists say they are entirely
willing to concede all this, with one exception. They say they are
willing, to trust the Territorial legislature, uner the limitations of the
Constitution, to legislate upon the rights ovheritance, to legislate in
regard to religion, education, and morals, to legislate in regard to the
relations of husband and wife, of parent and child, of guardian and
ward, upon everything pertaining to the dearest rights and interests 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
of white men, but they are not willing to trust them to legislate in
regard to a few miserable negroes. That is their single exception.
They acknowledge that the people of the Territories are capable of
deciding for themselves concerning white men, but not in relation
to negroes. The real gist of the matter is this: Does it require any
higher degree of civilization, and intelligence, and learning, and
sagacity, to legislate for negroes than for white men I If it does, we
aught to adopt the abolition doctrine, and go with them against this
bill. If it does not-if we are willing to trust the people with the
great, sacred, fundamental right of prescribing their own institutions,
consistent with the Constitution of the country-weo must vote for
this bill. That is the only question involved in the bill. I hope I
have been able to strip it of all the misrepresentation, to wipe away
all of that mist and obscurity with which it has been surrounded by
this abolition address.
I have now said all I have to say upon the present occasion. For
all, except the first ten minutes of these remarks, the abolition confederates are responsible. My object, in the first place, was only to
explain the provisions of the bill, so that they might be distinctly
understood. I was willing to allow its assailants to attack it as much
as they pleased, reserving to myself the right, when the time should
approach for taking the vote, to answer in a concluding speech all
the arguments which might be used against it. I still reserve-what
I believe common courtesy and parliamentary usage awards to the
chairman of a committee and the author of a bill-the right of summing up after all shall have been said which has to be said against
this measure.
I hope the compact which was made on last Tuesday, at the suggestion of these abolitionists, when the bill was proposed to be taken
up, will be observed. It was that the bill, whien taken up to-day,
should continue to be considered from day to day until finally disposed of. I hope they will not repudiate and violate that compact,
as they have the Missouri Compromise and all others which have
been entered into.  I hope, therefore, that we'Pay press the bill
to a vote; but not by depriving persons of an opportunity of
speaking.
I am in favor of giving every enemy of the bill the most ample
time. Let us hear them all patiently, and then take the vote and
pass the bill. We who are in favor of it know that the principle
on which it is based is right. Wily, then, should we gratify the
abolition party in their effort to get up another political tornado
of fanaticism, and put the country again in peril, merely for the
purpose of electing a few agitators to the Congress of the United
States? We intend to stand by the principle of the Compromise
measures 4 f 1850.
91
I 
92    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
ON NEBRASKA AND KANSAS.
.Delivered in the enate, March 3, 1854.
MB. PRESIDENT: before I proceed to the general argument upon
the most important branch of this question, I must say a few words
in reply to the senator from Tennessee (Mr. Bell), who has spoken
upon the bill to-day. He approves of the principles of the bill; he
thinks they have great merit; but he does not see his way entirely
clear to vote for the bill, because of the objections which he has
stated, most of which relate to the Indians.
Upon that point, I desire to say that it has never been the custom
in territorial bills to make regulations concerning the Indians within
the limits of the proposed Territories. All matters relating to them
it has been thought wise to leave to subsequent legislation, to be
brought forward by the Committee on Indian Affairs. I did venture
originally in this bill to put in one or two provisions upon that subject; but, at the suggestion of many senators on both sides of the
chamber, they were stricken out, in order to allow the appropriate
committee of the Senate to take charge of that subject. I think,
therefore, since we have stricken from the bill all those provisions
which pertain to the Indians, and reserved the whole subject for the
consideration and action of the appropriate committee, we have
obviated every possible objection which could reasonably be urged
upon that score. We have every reason to hope and trust that the
Committee on Indian Affairs will propose such measures as will do
entire justice to the Indians, without contravening the objects of
Congress in organizing these Territories.
But, sir, allusion has been made to certain Indian treaties, and it
has been intimated, if not charged in direct terms, that we were violating the stipulations of those treaties in respect to the rights and
lands of the Indians. The senator from Texas (Mr. Houston), made
a very long and interesting speech on that subject; but it so hap
pened that most of the treaties to which he referred were with In
dians not included within the limits of this bill. We have been informed, in the course of the debate to-day, by the chairman of the
Committee on Indian Affairs (Mr. Sebastian), that there is but one
treaty in existence relating to lands or Indians within the limits of
either of the proposed Territories, and that is the treaty with the
Ottawa Indians, about two hundred persons in number, owning
about thirty-four thousand acres of land. Thus it appears that the
whole argument of injustice to the red man, which in the course of
this debate has called forth so much sympathy and indignation, is
confined to two hundred Indians, owning less than two townships
of land. Ne w, sir, is it possible that a country, said to be five hun 
STEPRHEN A. DOUGLAS.
dred thousand square miles in extent, and large enough to make
twelve such States as Ohio, is to be consigned to perpetual barbarism
merely on account of that small numnber of Indians, when the bill
itself expressly provides that those Indians and their lands are not
to be included within the limits of the proposed Territories, nor to
be subject to their laws or jurisdiction?  I would not ailow this
measure to invade the rights of even one Indian, and hence I inserted
in the first section of the bill that none of the tribes with whom we
have treaty stipulations should be embraced within either of the
Territories, unless such Indians. shall voluntarily consent to be included therein by treaties hereafter to be made. If any senator can
furnish me with language more explicit, or which would prove
more effectual in securing the rights of the Indians, I will cheerfully
adopt it.
Well, sir, the senator from Tennessee, in a very kind spirit, hers
raises the objection for me to answer, that this bill includes Indians
within the limits of these Territories with whom we have no trea'ies; and he desires to know what we are to do with them. I will
say to him, that that is not a matter of inquiry which necessarily or
properly arises upon the passage of this bill; that is not a proper
inquiry to come before the committee on Territories.  You have in
all your Territorial bills included Indians within the boundaries of
the Territories. When you erected the Territory of Minnesota, you
had not extinguished the Indian title to one foot of land in that Territory west of the Mississippi River, and to the major part of that
Territory the Indian title remains unextinguished to this day.  In
addition to those wild tribes, you removed Indians from Wisconsin
and located them within Minnesota since the Territory was organized. It will be a question for the consideration of the Committee
on Indian Affairs, and for the action of Congress, when, in settlement and civilization, it shall become necessary to change the present
policy in respect to the Indians. When you erected the Territorial
government of Oregon, a few years ago, you embraced within it all
the Indians living in the Territory without their consent, and without any such reservations in their behalf as are contained ln this bill.
You had not at that time made a treaty with those Indians, nor extinguished their title to an acre of land- in that Territory, nor indeed
have you done so to this day. So it is in the organization of Washington Territory. You ran the lines around the country which you
thought ought to be'within the limits of the Territory, and you embraced all the Indians within those lines; but you made no provision
in respect to their rights or lands; you left that mattei to the Committee on Indian Affairs, to the Indian laws, and to the proper de
partment, to be arranged afterward as the public interests might
require.  The same is true in reference to Utah and S ew Mexico.
in fact, the policy provided for in this bill, in respect to the Indians, is that which is now in force in every one of ti e Territories.
Therefore, any senator who objects to this bill on tlom  score should
93 
.94    THE LIFE AND SPEECH]S OF
have objected to and voted against every Territorial bill which you
have now in existence. Yet my friend from Texas has taken occa sion to remind the Senate several times that it was a matter of pride
-and it ought to be a matter of patriotic pride with him-that he
voted for every measure of the Compromise of 1850, including the
Utah and New Mexico Territorial bills, embracing all the Indians
within their limits. My friend from Tennessee, too, has been very
liberal in voting for most of the Territorial bills; and I therefore
trust that the same patriotic and worthy motives which induced him
to vote for the Territorial acts of 1850 will enable him to give his
support to the present bill, especially as he approves of the great
principle of popular sovereignty upon which it rests.
The senator from Tennessee remarked further, that the proposed
limits of these two Territories were too extensive; that they were
large enough to be erected into eight different States; and why, he
asked, the necessity of including such a vast amount of country
within the limits of these two Territories? I must remind the sena tor that it has always been the practice to include a large extent of
country within one Territory, and then to subdivide it from time to
time as the public interest might require. Such was the case with
the old Northwest Territory. It was all originally included within
one Territorial government. Afterward Ohio was cut off; and then
Indiana, Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin, were successively erected
into separate Territorial governments, and subsequently admitted
into the Union as States.
At one period, it will be remembered, the Territory of Wisconsin
included the country embraced within the limits of the States of
Wisconsin and Iowa, and a part of the State of Michigan, and the
Territory of Minnesota. There is country enough within the Territory of Minnesota to make two or three States of the size of New
York. Washington Territory embraces about the same area. Oregon is large enough to make three or four States as extensive as
Pennsylvania; Utah two or three, and New Mexico four or five of
like dimensions. Indeed, the whole country embraced within the
proposed Territories of Nebraska and Kansas, together with the
States of Arkansas, Missouri and Iowa, and the larger part of Minnesota, and the whole of the Indian country west of Arkansas, once
constituted a Territorial government, under the name of the Missouri Territory. In view of this course of legislation upon the subject of Territorial organization, commencing before the adoption of
the Constitution of the United States and coming down to the last
session of Congress, it surely cannot be said that there is anything
unusual or extraordinary in the size of the proposed Territory which
should compel a senator to vote against the bill, while he approves
of the principles involved in the measure.
It has also been urged in debate that there is no necessity for these
Territorial organizations; and I have been called upon to point out
ally publf 3 and national considerations which require action at this 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
time. Senators seem to forget that our immense and valuable possessions on the Pacific are separated from the States and organized
Territories on this side of the Rocky Mountains by a vast wilderness, filled by hostile savages; that nearly a hundred thousand emigrants pass through this barbarous wilderness every year, on their
way to California and Oregon; that these emigrants are American
citizens, our own constituents, who are entitled to the protection of
law and government; and that they are left to make their way, as
best they may, without the protection or aid of law or government.
The United States mails for New Mexico and Utah, and all official
communications between this government and the authorities of
those Territories, are required to be carried over these wild plains,
and through the gorges of the mountains, where you have made no
provision for roads, bridges, or ferries, to facilitate travel, or forts
or other means of safety to protect life. As often as I have brought
forward and urged the adoption of measures to remedy these evils,
and afford security against the dangers to which our people are con sLantly exposed, they have been promptly voted down as not being
cf sufficient importance to command the favorable consideration of
Congress.  Now, when I propose to organize the Territories, and
tdlow the people to do for themselves what you have so often re fused to do for them, I am told that there are not white inhabitants
enough permanently settled in the country to require and sustain a
government. True, there is not a very large population there, for
the very good reason that your Indian code and intercourse laws ex clude the settlers, and -forbid their remaining there to cultivate the
soil. You refuse to throw the country open to settlers, and then
object to the organization of the Territories upon the ground that
there is not a sufficient number of inhabitants.
The senator from Connecticut (Mr. Smith) has made a long argu ment to prove that there are no inhabitants in the proposed Terri tories, because nearly all of those who have gone and settled there
have done so in violation of certain old acts of Congress which for bid the people to take possession of and settle upon the public lands
until after they should be surveyed and brought into market.
I do not propose to discuss the question whether these settlers are
technically legal inhabitants or not. It is enough for me that they
are a part of our own people; that they are settled on the public
domain; that the public interests would be promoted by throwing
that public domain open to settlement; and that there is no good
reason why the protection of law and the blessings of government
should not be extended to them. I must be permitted to remind
the senator that the same objection existed in its full force to Minne sota, to Oregon and to Washington, when each of those Territories
were organized; and that I have no recollection that hlie deemed it
nis duty to call the attention of Congress to the objection, or con sidered it of sufficient importance to justify him in recording his
nwil vc*te against the organization of either of those Territories.
95 
6  THE LIFE AN DI) SPEECHES OF
Mr. President, I do not feel called upon to make any reply to the
argument which the senator from Connecticut has urged against the
passage of this bill upon the score of expense in sustainilng these Ter ritorial governments, for the reason that, if the public interests re quire the enactment of the law, it follows as a natural consequence
that all the expenses necessary to carry it into effect are wise and
proper.
I will now proceed to the consideration of the great principle in volved in the bill, without omitting, however, to notice some of
those extraneous matters which have been brought into this discus sion with the view of producing another anti-slavery agitation. We
have been told by nearly every senator who has spoken in opposition
to this bill, that at the time of its introduction the people were in a
state of profound quiet and repose; that the anti-slavery agitation
had entirely ceased; and that the whole country was acquiescing
cheerfully and cordially in the Compromise measures of 1850, as a
final adjustment of this vexed question.
Sir, it is truly refreshing to hear senators who contested every
inch of ground in opposition to those measures when they were
under discussion, who predicted all manner of evils and calamities
from their adoption, and who raised the cry of repeal, and even
resistance, to their execution, after they had become the lawis of the
land-I say it is really refireshing to hear these same senators now
bear their united testimony to the wisdom of those measures, and to
the patriotic motives which induced us to pass them in defiance of
their threats and resistance, and to their beneficial effects in restoring peace, harmony and fraternity to a distracted country. These
are precious confessions from the lips of those who stand pledged
never to assent to the propriety of those measures, and to rTake war
upon them so long as they shall remain upon the statute-book.  I
well understand that these confessions are now made, nou with the
view of yielding their assent to the propriety of carrying those
enactments into faithful execution, but for the purpose of having a
pretext for charging upon me, as the author-of this bill, tile responsibility of an agitation which they are striving to pro(du,e. They say
that I, and not they, have revived the agitation. What have I done
to render me obnoxious to this charge? They say I wrote and introduced this Nebraska Bill.  That is true; but I was not a volunteer
in the transaction.  The Senate, by a unanimous vote, appointed me
thairman of the Territorial Committee, and associated five intelligent
and patriotic senators with me, and thus made it our duty to take
charge of all Territorial business. In like manner, and with the
concurrence of these complaining senators, the Senate referred to us
a distinct proposition to organize this Nebraska Territory, and required us to report specifically upon the question. I repeat, theren,
we were not volunteers in this business.  The duty was  imposed
upon us by the Senate. We were not unmindful of the delicacy and
responsibility of the position.  We were aware that front iz0 to 
STEPHEN -A. DOUGLAS.
I a0  the abolition doctrine of Congressional interference with slavery
in the Territories and new States had so far prevailed as to keep up
an incessant slavery agitation in Congress and throughout the country, whenever any new Territory was to be acquired or organized.
We were also aware that, in 1850, the right of the people to decide
this question for themselves, subject only to the Constitution, was
substituted for the doctrine of Congressional intervention.  The first
question, therefore, which the committee were called upon to decide,
and indeed the only question of any material importance, in framing
this bill, was this: Shall we adhere to and carry out the principle
recognized by the Compromise nicasures of 1850, or shall we go
back to the old exploded doctrine of Congressional interference, as
established in 1820 in a large portion of the country, and which it
was the object of the Wilmot Proviso to give a universal application, not only to all the Territory which we then possessed, but all
which we might hereafter acquire? There were no other alternatives. We were compelled to frame the bill upon the one or the
other of these two principles. The doctrine of 1820 or the doctrine
of 1850 must prevail. In the discharge of the duty imposed upon us
by the Senate, the commnlittee could not hesitate upon this point,
whether we consulted our individual opinions and principles, or
those which were known to be entertained and boldly avowed by a
large majority of the Senate. The two great political parties of the
country stood solemnly pledged before the world to adhere to the
Compromise measures of 1850, "in principle and substance." A
large majority of the Senate, indeed every member of the body, I
believe, except the two avowed abolitionists (Mr. Chase and Mr.
Sumner), profess to belong to the one or the other of these parties,
and hence was supposed to be under a high moral obligation to carry
out the "principle and substance" of those measures in all new Territorial organizations. The report of the committee was in accord.
ance with this obligation. I am arraigned, therefore, for having
endeavored to represent the opinions and principles of the Senate
truly; fbr having performed my duty in conformity with the parliamentary law; for having been faithful to the trust reposed in me by
the Senate. Let the vote this night determine whether I have thus
faithfully represented your opinions. When a majority of the Senate
shall have passed the bill; when a majority of the States shall have
indorsed it through their representatives upon this floor; wren a
majority of the South and a majority of the North shall have salctioned it; when a majority of the Whig party and a majority of the
Democratic party shall have voted for it; when each of these propositions shall be demonstrated by the vote this night on the final
passage of the bill, I shall be willing to submit the question to the
country, whether, as the organ of the committee, I performed my
duty in the report and bill which have called down upon my head
60 mu L denunciation and abuse.
Mr. President, the opponents of this measure have had mueh to
97 
98     THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
say about the mutations and modifications which this bill has under  gone since it was first introduced by myself, and about the alleged
departure of the bill, in its present form, from the principle laid
down in the original report of the committee as a rule of action in
all future Territorial organizations. Fortunately there is no neces sity, even if your patience would tolerate such a course of argument
at this late hour of the night, for me to examine these speeches in
detail, and to reply to each charge separately. Each speaker seems
to have followed faithfully in the footsteps of his leader-in the path
marked out by the abolition confederates in their manifesto, which
I exposed on a former occasion. You have seen them on their win(l ing way, meandering the narrow and crooked path in Indian file,
each treading close upon the heels of the other, and neither ventur ing to take a step to the right or left, or to occupy one inch of ground
which did not bear the foot-print of the abolition champion. To
answer one, therefore, is to answer the whole. The statement to
which they seem to attach the most importance, and which they
have repeated oftener perhaps than any other, is, that, pending the
Compromise measures of 1850, no man in or out of Congress ever
dreamed of abrogating the Missouri Compromise; that from that
period down to the present session, nobody supposed that its validity
had been impaired, or anything done which rendered it obligatory
upon us to make it inoperative hereafter; that at the time of sub mitting the report and bill to the Senate, on the 4th of January last,
neither I nor any member of the committee ever thought of such a
thing; and that we could never be brought up to the point of abrogating the eighth section of the Missouri act until after the senator
from Kentucky introduced his amendment to my bill.
Mr. President, before I proceed to expose the many misrepresentations contained in this complicated charge, I must call the attention
of the Senate to the false issue which these gentlemen are endeavoring to impose upon the country, for the purpose of diverting public
attention from the real issue contained in the bill. They wish to
have the people believe that the abrogation of what they call the
Missouri Compromise was the main object and aim of the bill, and
that the only question involved is, whether the prohibition of slavery
north of 36  30' shall be repealed or not?  That which is a mere
incident, they choose to consider the principal. They make war on
the means by which we propose to accomplish an object, instead of
openly resisting the object itself. The principle which we propose
to carry into effect by the bill is this: That Congress shall neither
legislate slavery into any Territories or State, nor out of the same;
but the people shall be left free to regulate their domestic concerns
in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United
States.
In order to carry this principle into practical operation, it becomes
necessary to remove whatever legal obstacles might be found in the
way of its free exercise. It is only for the purpose of carrying out 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLA.B.
this great fundamental principle of self-government that the bill
renders the eighth section of the Missouri act inoperative and
void.
Now, let me ask, will these senators who have arraigned me, or
any one of them, have the assurance to rise in his place and declare
that this great principle was never thought of or advocated as applicable to Territorial bills in 1850; that, from that session until the
present, nobody ever thought of incorporating this principle in all
new Territorial organizations; that the Committee on Territories
did not recommend it in their report; and that it required the
amendment of the senator from Kentucky to bring us up to that
point? Will any one of my accusers dare to make this issues and
let it be tried by the record?  I will begin with the compromises of
1850. Any senator who will take the trouble to examine our journals will find that on the 25th of March of that year I reported from
the Committee on Territories two bills including the following measures: The admission of California, a Territorial government for
Utah, a Territorial government for New Mexico, and the adjustment
of the Texas boundary. These bills proposed to leave the people of
Utah and New Mexico free to decide the slavery question for themselves, in the precise language of the Nebraska Bill now under discussion. A few weeks afterward, the Committee of Thirteen took
those two bills and put a wafer between them, and reported them
back to the Senate as one bill, with some slight amendments. One
of those amendments was, that the Territorial legislatures should
not legislate upon the subject of African slavery. I objected to that
provision upon the ground that it subverted the great principle of
self-government upon which the bill had been originally framed by
the Territorial Committee. On the the first trial, the Senate refused
to strike it out, but subsequently did so, after full debate, in order
to establish that principle as the rule of action in Territorial organizations.
Upon this point I trust I will be excused for reading one or two
sentences from some remarks I made in the Senate on the 3d of June,
1850:
" The position that I have ever taken has been that this, the slavery question,
and all other questions relating to the domestic affairs and domestic policy of
the Territories. ought to be left to the decision of the people themselves, and
that we ought to be content with whatever way they would decide the ques
tion, because they have a much deeper interest in these matters than we have,
and know much better what institutions will suit them, than we, who have
never been there, can decide for them."
Again, in the same debate, I said:
" I do not see how those of us who have taken the position which we have
taken, (that of non-interference,) and have argued in favor of the right of the
people to legislature for themselves on this question, can support such a proision without abandoning all the argumnents which we urged in the PreiaeD
21
99 
100    THE LIFE AIA  S.PEECHES OF
tiat campaign in the year 1848, and the principles set forth by the honorable
senator from Michigan in that letter which is known as the'Nicholson letter.'
We are required to abandon that platform; we are required to abandon those
principles, and to stultify ourselves, and to adopt the opposite doctrine; and
for what? In order to say that the people of the Territories shall not have
such institutions as they shall deem adapted to their condition and their wants.
I do not see, sir, how such a provision as that can be acceptable either to the
people of the North or the South."
Mr. President, I could go on and multiply extract after extract
from my speeches in 1850, and prior to that date, to show that this
doctrine of leaving the people to decide these questions for themselves is not an "after-thought " with me, seized upon, this session,
for the first time, as my calumniators have so frequently and boldly
clJarged in their speeches during this debate, and in their manifesto
to the public. I refused to support the celebrated Omnibus Bill in
1850 until the obnoxious provision was stricken out, and the principle
of self-government restored, as it existed in my original bill.  No
sooner were the Compromise measures of 1850 passed, than the
abolition confederates, who lead the opposition to this bill now,
raised the cry of repeal in some sections of the country, and in others
forcible resistance to the execution of the law. In order to arrest
,rnd suppress the treasonable purposes of these abolition confederates,
and avert the horrors of civil war, it became my duty, on the 23d
of October, 1850, to address an excited andl frenzied multitude at
Chicago, in defence of each and all of the Compromise measures of
that year. I will read one or two sentences from that speech, to
show how those measures were then understood and explained by
their advocates:
" These measures are predicated on the great fundamental principle that everj
people ought to possess the right of forming and regulating their own interna
concerns and domestic institutions in their own way."
Again:  " These things are all confided by the Constitution to each State to decide
for itself, and I KNOW OF NO REASON WEY THE same principle should not be conf(ied to the Territories."
In this speech it will be seen that I lay down a general principle
of universal application, and make no distinction between Territories north or south of 36~,O0'.
I am aware that some of the abolition confederates have perpetrated a monstrous forgery on that speech, and are now circulating
through the abolition newspapers the statement that I said that
I would "cling with the tenacity of life to the compromise of i820."
This statement, false as it is-a deliberate act of forgery, as it is
known to be by all who have ever seen or read the speech referred
to-constitutes the staple article out of which most of the abolition
orators at the small anti-Nebraska meetings manufacture the greater
part of their speeches. I now declare that there is not a sentence. 
SThEP]AIN  A. D)OUGLAS. 
a line, even a word in that speech, which imposes the slightest liinitation on the application of the great principle embraced in this
bill in all new Territorial organizations, without the least reference
to the line of 36~ 80'.
At the session of 1850-51, a few  weeks  after this speech was
made at Chicago, and when it had been published in pamphlet form
and circulated extensively over the States, the legislature of.:inois
proceeded to revise its action upon the. slavwry question, and define
its position on the compromise of 1850. After rescinding the resolutions adopted at a previous session, instructing my colleague and
myself to vote for a proposition prohibiting slavery inthe Territories,
resolutions were adopted approving the Compromise measures of
1850. I will read one of the resolutions, which was adopted in the
House of Representatives, by a vote of 61. yeas to 4 nays:
" Resolved, That our liberty and independence are based upon the right of
the people to form for themselves such a government as they may choose;
that this great privilege-the birthright offreemen. the gift of Heaven, secured
to us by the blood of our ancestors-ought to be extended to future generations;
and no limitation ought to be applied to this power, in the organization of any
Territory of the United States, of either a Territorial government or a State
Constitution: Provided, The government so established shall be republican,
and in conformity with the Constitution."
Another series of resoulutions having passed the Senate almost
unanimously, embracing the same principle in different language,
they were concurred in by the House.  Thus was the position of
Illinois, upon the slavery question defined at the first session of the
legislature after the adoption of the Compromise of 1850.
Now, sir, what becomes of the declaration which has been made
by nearly every opponent of this bill, that nobody in this whole
Union ever dreamed that the principle of the Utah and New Mexican
bill was to be incorporated into all future Territorial organizations?
I have shown that my own State so understood and declared it at
the time in the most implicit and solemn manner.  Illinois declared
that our "liberty and independence" rest upon this "principle;"
that-the principle "ought to be extended to future generations;"
and that "No LIMITATIONI OJUGHT TO BE APPLIED TO THIS POWER IN
THE ORGANIZATION OF ANY TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES."  NO
exception is made in regard to Nebraska.  No Missouri Compromise
lines; no reservations of the country north of 360 30'. The principle
is declared to be be the "birthright of freemen:" the "gift of Heaven, to be applied without limitation," in Nebraska as well as Utah,
north as well as south of 36~ 30'.
It may not be out of place here to remark that the legislature of
Illinois, at its recent session, has passed resolutions approving the
Nebraska Bill; and among the resolutions is one in the precise
Language of the resolution of 1851, which I have just read to the
~aate.
101
I 
102    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
Thus I have shown, Mr. President, that the legislature and people
of Illinois have always understood the Compromise measures of 1850
as establishing certain principles as rules of action in the organization
of all new Territories, and that no limitation was to be made on
either side of the geographical line of 36~ 30'.
Neither my time nor your patience will allow me to take up the
resolutions of the different States in detail, and show what has been
the common understanding of the whole country upon this point.  I
am now vindicating myself and my own action against the assaults
of my calumniators; and, for that purpose, it is sufficient to show
that, in the report and bill which I have presented to the Senate, 1
have only carried out the known principles and solemnly declared
will of the State whose representative I am. I will now invite the
attention of the Senate to the report of the committee, in order that
it may be known how much, or rather how little, truth there is for
the allegation which has been so often made and repeated on this
floor, that the idea of allowing the people in Nebraska to decide the
slavery question for themselves was a "sheer after-thought," conceived since the report was made, and not until the senator from
Kentucky proposed his amendment to the bill.
I read from that portion of the report in which the committee
lay down the principle by which they propose to be governed:
"In the judgment of your committee, those measures (Compromise of 1850)
were intended to have a far more comprehensive and enduring effect than the
mere adjustment of the difficulties arising out of the recent acquisition of
Mexican territory. They Were designed to establish certain great principles,
which would not only furnish adequate remedies for existing evils, but in all
time to come avoid the perils of a similar agitation, by withdrawing the question
of slaveryfrom the halle of Congress and the political arena, and committing it to
the arbitrament of those who were immediately interested in and alone responsible
for its consequences."
After making a brief argument in defence of this principle, the
report proceeds, as follows:
" From these provisions, it is apparent that the Compromise measures of 1850
affirm and rest upon the following propositions:
" First, that all questions pertaining to slavery in the Territories, and in
the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the
people residing therein, by their appropriate representatives, to be chosen by
them for that purpose.'
And in conclusion, the report proposes a substitute for the bill
introduced by the senator from Iowa, and concludes as follows:
" The substitute for the bill which your committee have prepared, and
which is commended to the favorable action of the Senate, proposes to carry
these propositions and principles into practical operation, In the precise lan.
guage of the Compromise measures of 1850."
Mr. President, as there has been so much misrepresentation upon 
S T EPHEN A. DO  L GLA S.
this point, I must be permitted to repeat that the doctrine pf the
report of the committee, as has been conclusively proved by these
extracts, lb,-    -
First, That the whole question of slavery should be withdrawn
from the halls of Congress, and the political arena, and committed
to the arbitrament of those who are immediately interested in and
alone responsible for its existence.
Second, The applying this principle to the Territories and the new
States to be formed therefrom, all questions pertaining to slavery
were to be referred to the people residing therein.
Third, That the committee proposed to carry these propositions
and principles into effect in the precise language of the compromise
measures of 1850.
Are not these propositions identical with the principles and provisions of the bill on your table? If there is a hair's breadth of discrepancy between the two, I ask any senator to rise in his place and
point it out. Both rest upon the great principle, which forms the
basis of all our institutions, that the people are to decide the question
for themselves, subject only to the Constitution.
But my accusers attempt to raise up a false issue, and thereby
divert public attention from the real one, by the cry that the Missouri Compromise is to be repealed or violated by the passage of this
bill. Well, if the eighth section of the Missouri Act, which attempted
to fix the destinies of future generations in those Territories for all
time to come, in utter disregard of the rights and wishes of the
people when they should be received into the Union as States, be
inconsistent with the great principle of self-government and the
Constitution of the United States it ought to be abrogated. The
legislation of 1850 abrogated the Missouri Compromise, so far as the
country embraced within the limits of Utah and New Mexico was
covered by the slavery restriction.  It is true, that those acts did
not in terms and by name repeal the act of 1820, as originally adopted,
or as extended by the resolutions annexing Texas in 1845, any more
than the report of the Committee on Territories proposes to repeal
the same acts this session. But the acts of 1850 did authorize the
people of those Territories to exercise "' all rightful powers of legislation consistent with the Constitution," not excepting the question
of slavery; and did provide that, when those Territories should be
admitted into the Union, they should be received with or with'ut
slavery as the people thereof might determine at the date of their
admission. These provisions were in direct conflict with a clause in
a former enactment, declaring that slavery should be forever prohibited in any portion of said Territories, and hence rendered such
clause inoperative and void to the extent of such conflict. This was
an inevitable consequence, resulting from the provisions in those
acts which gave the people the right to decide the slavery question
for themselves, in conformity with the Constitution. It was not
necessary to go further and declare that certain previous enactments,
'108 
104    THE.LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
which were incompatible with the exercise of the powers conferred
in the bills, "are hereby repealed."  The very act of granting those
powers and rights have the legal effect of removing all obstructions
to the exercise of them by the people, as prescribed in thqee Territorial bills. Following that example, the Committee on Territories
did not consider it necessary to declare the eighth section of the
Missouri act repealed. We were content to organize Nebraska ill
the precise language of the Utah and New Mexican bills.  Our
object was to leave the people entirely free to form and regulate their
domestic institutions and internal concerns in their own way, under
the constitution; and we deemed it wise to accomplish that object
in the exact terms in which the same thing had been done in Utah
and New Mexico by the acts of 1850.  This was the principle upon
which the commnittee reported; and our bill was supposed, and is
now believed, to have been in accordance with it. When doubts
were raised whether the bill did fully carry out the principle laid
down in the report, amendments were made, from time to time, in
order to avoid all misconstruction, and make the true intent of the
act more explicit. The last of these amendments was adopted yesterday, on the motion of the distinguished senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Badger), in regard to the revival of any laws or
regulations which may haye existed prior to 1820. That amendment
was not intended to change the legal effect of the bill.  Its object
was to repel the slander which had been propagated by the enemies
of the measures in the North, that the southern supporters of the
bill desired to legislate slavery into these Territories. The south
denies the right of Congress either to legislate slavery into any
Territory or State, or out of any Territory or State.  Non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States or Territories is the
doctrine of the bill, and all the amendments which have been agreed
to have been made with the view of removing all doubts and cavil
as to the true meaning and object of the measure.
Mr. President, I think I have succeeded in vindicating myself and
the action of the committee from the assaults which have been made
upon us in consequence of these amendments. It seems to be the
tactics of our opponents to direct their arguments against the unimportant points and inc.dental questions which are to be affected by
carrying out the principle, with the hope of relieving themselves
from the necessity of controverting the principle itself.  The senator
from Ohio (Mr. Chase) led off gallantly in the charge that the committee, in the report and bill first submitted, did not contemplate the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and could not be brought to that
point until after the senator from Kentucky offered his amendment.
The senator from Connecticut (Mr. Smith) followed his lead, and
repeated the same statement. Then' came the other senator from
Ohio (Mr. Ward), and the senator from  New York (Mr. Seward),
and senator from Massachusetts (Mlr. Sumner), all singing the same
so,g, only varying the tune. 
STEPHEN  A. D()OUGLAS.
Let me ask those senators what they mean by this statement? 
Do they w ish to be understood as saying that the report and first
form of the bill did not provide for leaving the slavery question to
the decision of the people in the terms of the Utah Bill?  Surely
they will not dare to say that, for I have already shown that the
two measures were identical in principle and enactment. Do they
mean to say that the adoption of our -first bill would not have had
the legal effect to have rendered the eighth section of the Missouri
Act "inoperative and void," to use the language of the present bill?
If this be not their meaning, will they rise in their places and inform
the Senate what their meaning was? They must have had some
object in giving so much prominence to this statement, and in repeating it so often. I address the question to the senators from Ohio
and Massachusetts (Mr. Chlase and Mr. Sumner). I despair in extorting a response from them, for, no matter in what way they may
answer upon this point, I have in my hand the evidence over their
own signatures, to disprove the truth of their answer.  I allude to
their appeal or manifesto to the people of the United States, in which
they arraign the bill and report, in coarse and savage terms, as a
proposition to repeal the Missouri Compromise, to violate plighlited
faith, to abrogate a solemn compact, etc. etc. This document was
signed by those two senators in their official capacity, and published
to the world before any amendments had been offered to the bill.
It was directed against the committee's first bill and report, and
against them alone. If the statements in this document be true,
that the first bill did repeal the eighth section of the Missouri Act,
what are we to think of the statements in their speeches since, that
such was not the intention of the committee, was not the recommendation of the report, and was not the legal effect of the bill?
On the contrary, if the statements in their subsequent speeches are
true, what apology do those senators propose to make to the Senate
and country for having falsified the action of the committee in a
document over their own signatures, and thus spread a false alarm
among the people, and nmisled the public mind in respect to our proceedings? These senators cannot avoid the one or the other of these
alternatives. Let tl)em seize upon either, and they stand condemned
and self-convicted; in the one case by their manifesto, and in the
other by their speeches.
In fact, it is clear that they have understood the bill to mean the
saiie thing, and to have the same legal effect in whatever phase il
has been presented. When first introduced, they denounced it as a
proposition to abrogate the Missouri restriction. When amended,
they repeated the same denunciation, and so on each successive
amendment.  They now object to the passage of the bill for the same
reason, thus proving conclusively that they have not the least faith
in the correctness of their own statements in respect to the mutations
and changes in the bill.
They seem very unwilling to meet the real issue. They do not
105 
106    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
like to discuss the principle. There seems to be something which
strikes themn with terror when you invite their attention to this great
fundamental principle of popular sovereignty. Hence you find that
all the memorials they have presented are against repealing the Missouri Compromise, and in favor of the sanctity of compacts-in favor
of preserving plighted faith. Tile senator from Ohio is cautious to
dedicate his speech with some such heading as "Maintain Plighted
Faith." The object is to keep the attention of the people as far as
possible from this principle of self-government and constitutional
rights.
Well, sir. what is this Missouri Compromise,-of which we have
heard so much of late?  It has been read so often that it is not
necessary to occupy the time of the Senate in reading it again. It
was an act of Oongress, passed on the 6th of March, 1820, to authorize the people of Missouri to form a constitution and a State government, preparatory to the admission of such State into the Union.
The first section provided that Missouri should be received into the
Union "on an equal footing with the original States in all respects
whatsoever." The last and eighlth section provided that slavery
should be "for ever prohibited" in all the territory which lead been
acquired from France north of 360~ 30', and not included within the
limit, of the State of Missouri.  There is nothing in the terms of the
law that purports to be a compact, or indicates that it was anything
more than an ordinary act of legislation. To prove that it was more
than it purports to be on its face, gentlemen must produce other
evidence, and prove that there was such an understanding as to
create a moral obligation in the nature of a compact. Have they
shown it?
I have heard but one item of evidence produced during this whole
debate, and that was a short paragraph from Niles's Register, published a few days after the passage of the act.  But gentlemen aver
that it was a solemn compact, which could not be violated or abrogated without dishonor. According to their understanding, the contract was that, in consideration of the admission of Missouri into the
Union, on an equal footing with the original States in all respects
whatsoever, slavery should be prohibited forever in the Territories
north of 360 30'. Now, who were the parties to this alleged compact? They tell us that it was a stipulation between the North and
the South.  Sir, I know of no such parties under the Constitution.
I am unwilling that there shall be any such parties known in our
legislation. If there is such a geographical line, it ought to be obliterated for ever, and there should be no other parties than those
provided for in the Constitution, viz.: the States of this Union.
These are the only parties capable of contracting under the Constitutio)n of the United States.
Now, if this was a compact, let us see how it was entered into.
The bill originated in the House of Representatives, and passed that
body without a southern vote, in its favor.  It is proper to remark 
8STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
nowever, that it did not at that time contain the eighth section, ppo.
hibiting slavery in the Territories; but in lieu of it, contained a plovision prohibiting slavery in the proposed State of Missouri. In the
Senate, the clause prohibiting slavery in the State was stricken out,
and the eighth section added to the end of the bill, by the terms of
which slavery was to be forever prohibited in the Territory not
embraced in the State of Missouri north of 36~ 30'.  The vote on
adding this section stood, in the Senate, 34 in the affirmative, and 10
in the negative. Of the northern senators, 20 voted for it and 2
against it. On the question of ordering the bill to a third reading as
amended, which was the test vote on its passage, thie vote stood 24
yeas and 20 nays. Of the northern senators, 4 only voted in the
affirmative, and 18 in the negative. Thius it will be seen that, if it
was intended to be a compact, the North never agreed to it. The
northern senators voted to insert the prohibition of slavery in the
Territories; and then, in the proportion of more than four to one
voted against the passage of the bill. The North, therefore, never
signed the compact, never consented to it, never agreed to be bound
by it. This fact becomes very important in vindicating the character
of the North for repudiating this alleged compromise a few months
afterward. The act was approved and became a law on the 6thl of
March, 1820. In the summer of that year, the people of Missouri
formied a constitution and State government, preparatory to admission into the Union, in conformity with the act. At the next session
of Congress the Senate passed a joint resolution, declaring Missouri
to be one of the States of the Union, on an equal tooting with the
original States.  This resolution was sent to the House of Representatives, where it was rejected by northern votes, and thus Missouri
was votled out of the Union, instead of being received into the Union
under the act of the 6th of March, 1820, now known as the Missouri
Compromise. Now, sir, what becomes of our plighlited faith, if the
act of the 6th of March, 1820, was a solemn compact, as we are now
told?  They have all rung the changes upon it, that it was a sacred
and irrevocable compact, binding in honor, in conscience, and morals,
which could not be violated or repudiated without perfidy and dishonor!  The two  senators from Ohio (Mr. Chase and Mr. Wade),
the senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumnner), the senator from Connecticut (Mr. Smith), the senator fi-om New York (Mr. Seward), and
perhaps others, have all assumed this position.
MR. SEWARD.-Whoever will refer to my antecedents will find
that in the year 1850 I expressed opinions on the subject of legislative compromises between the North and South, which, at that day
were rejected and repudiated.
MP. DOUGLAS.-If the object of the senator is to go back, and go
through all his opinions, I cannot yield the floor to him; but if his
object is now to show that the North did not violate the Missouri
compromise, I will yield.
.IM. SEWARD.-If the honorable senator will allow  me just off
107 
108     THE LIFE AND  SPEECIBeYr  OF
minu!e and a half, without dictating what I shall say within tLat
minute and a half, I shall be satisfied.
MR. DOUGLAs.-Certainly, I will consent to that.
MRf. SEWARD.-I find that the honorable senator fromn Illinois is
standing upon the ground upon which I stood in 1850.  I have
nothing to say now in favor of that ground. On this occasion, I
stand upon the ground, in regard to compromises, which has been
adopted by the country.  Then, when the senator tells me that the
North did not altogether, willingly, and unanimously, consent to the
compromise of 1820, I agree to it; but I have been overborne in the
country, on the ground that if one northern man carried with him a
majority of Congress he bound the whole North.  And so I hold in
regard to the compromise of 1820, that it was carried by a vote
which has been held by the South and by the honorable senator
from Illinois to bind the North. The South having received their
consideration and equivalent, I only hold him, upon his own doctrine
and the doctrine of the South, bound to stand to it.  That is all I
have to say upon that point.
A few words more will cover all that I have to say about what
the honorable senator may say hereafter as to the North repudiating
this contract. When I was absent, I understood the senator alluded
to the fact that my name appeared upon a paper which was issued
ty the honorable senator from Ohio, and some other members of
Congress, to the people, on the subject of this bill.  Upon that point
it has been my intention throughout to leave to the honorable
senator from Illinois, and those who act with him, whatever there
is of merit, and whatever there is of responsibility for the present
measure, and for all the agitation and discussion upon it. Therefore,
as soon as I found, when I returned to the Capitol, that my name
was on that paper, I caused it to be made known and published, as
fully and extensively as I could, that I had never been consulted in
regard to it; that I know nothing about it; and that the merit of
the measure, as well as the responsibility, belonged to the honorable
senator from Ohio, and those who cooperated with him; and that I
had never seen the paper on which he commented; nor have I in
any way addressed the public upon the subject.
MR. DOUGLAS.-I wish to ask the senatorfrom NewYork a question.
If I understood his remarks when he spoke, and if I understand lhis
speo.ech as published, he averred that the M)issouri Compromise was a
compa. between the North and the South; that the North performed
it on its pa 5; that it had done so faithfully for thirty years; that
+he South had received all its benefits, and the moment these benefits
had been fully realized, the South disavowed the obligatio)ns under
which it had received them. Is not that his position?
.MR. SEWARD.-I am not accustomed to answer questions put to me,
unless they are entirely categorical, and placed in such a shape that
I may know exactly, and have time to consider, their whole extent
The honorable senator from Illinois has put a very broad question 
.STEPHEN A DOUGLA S.
What I mean to say, however, and that will answer his purpose, is,
that his position, and that the positiok)n of the South is, that this was
a compromise; and I say that the North has never repudiated that
compromise. Indeed, it has never had the power to do so. Missouri
came into the Union, and Arkansas came into.the Union, under that
compromise;  and, whatever individuals may have said, whatever
individuals, more or less humble than myself, may have contended,
the practical effect is, that the Soeuth has had all that she could get
by that compromise, and that the North is now in the predicament
of being obliged to defend what was left to her. I believe that
answers the question.
AIR. DOUGLAS.-Now, Mr. President, I choose to'bring men directly
up to this point.  The senator from New York  has lablored in his
whole speech to make it appear that this was a compact; that the
North had been faithful; and that the South acquiesced until she got
all its advantages, and then disavowed and sought to annul it.  This
he pronounced to be bad faith; and he made appeals about disorder.
The senator from Connecticut (Mr. Smith) did the same thing, and
so did the senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner), and the senator'
from Ohio (Mr. Chase). That is the point to which the whole abolition party are now directing all their artillery in this battle. Now,
I propose to bringtthemn to the point.  If this was a compact, and if
what they have said is fair, or just, or true, who was it that repudiated the compact?
MR. SUMNER.-Mr. President, the senator from Illinois, I know, does
not intend to misstate my position. That position, as announced in
the language of the speech which I addressed to the Senate, and.
which I now hold in my hand, is, "' this is an infraction of solemn
oblig,ations, assumed beyond recall by the South, on the admission of
m]issouri into the Union as a slave State;" which was one year after
the act of 1820.
MR. DOUGLAS.-Mfr. President, I shall come to that; and I wish to
see whether this was an obligation which was assumed "beyond
recall." If it was a compact between the two parties, one party has
been faithful, it is beyond recall by the other. If, however, one party
has been faithless, what shall we think of them, if, while faithless,
they ask a performance?
MR. SEWARD.-Show it.
MR. DOUGLAS. —Thlat is what I am  coming to.  I have already
stated that, at the next session of Congress, Missouri presented a
constitution in conformity with the act of 1820; that the Senate passed
a joint resolution to admit her; and that the House refused to admit
Missouri in conformity with the alleged compact, and, I think, on
three distinct votes, rejected her.
MR. SEWARD.-I beg my honorable friend, for I desire to call him
so, to answer me frankly whether he would rather I should say what
I have to say in this desultory way, or whether he would prefer that 1
should answer liim afterward; because it is with me a rule in the beaatw never to interrupt a gentleman, except to help him in his argument.
109 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
MR. DOUGLAS.-I would rather hear the senator now.
MR. SEWARD.-What I have to say now, and I acknowledge the
magnanimity of the senator from Illinois in allowing me to say it, is,
that the North stood by that compact until Missouri came in with a
constitution, one article of which denied to colored citizens of other
States the equality of privileges which were allowed to all other
citizens of the United Sates, and then the North insisted on the right
of colored men to be regarded as citizens, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens. Upon that a new compromise was
necessary. I hope I am candid.
MR. DOUGLAs.-The senator is candid, I have no doubt,  as he
understands the facts; but I undertake to maintain that the North
objected to Missouri because she allowed slavery, and not because of
the free-negro clause alone.
MR. SEWARD.-NO sir.
MR. DOUGLAS.-Now I will proceed to prove that the North did
not object, solely on account of the free-negro clause; but that in
House of Representatives at that time, the North objected as well
because of slavery as in regard to free negroes. Here is the evidence.
In the House of Representatives, on the 12th of February, 1821, Mr.
Mallory, of Vermont, moved to amend the Senate joint resolution
for the admission of Missouri, as follows:
" To amend the said amendment, by striking out all thereof after the words
respects, and inserting the following:' Whenever people of the said State, by
a convention, appointed according to the manner provided by the act to authorize the people of Missouri to form a constitution and State government, and
for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the
original States, and to prohibit slavery in certain Territories, approved March
6, 1820, adopt a constitution conformably to the provisions of said act, and
shall, IN ADDITION to said provisions, further provide, in and by said constitution,
that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever be allowed in said State of
Missouri, unless inflicted as a punishment for crimes committed against the
laws of said State, whereof the party accused shall be duly convicted: Provided, That the civil condition of those persons who now are held to service inl
Missouri shall not be affected by this last provision."'
Here I show, then, that the proposition was made that Missouri
should not come in unless, in addition to complying with the Missouri Compromise, so called, she would go further, and prohibit
slavery within the limits of the State.
MR. SEWARD.-Now, then, for the vote.
MR. DOUGLAS. The vote was taken by yeas and nays.  I hold it
in my hand. Sixty-one northern men voted for that amendment,
and thirty-three against it. Thus the North, by a vote of nearly two
to one, expressly repudiated a solemn compact upon the very matter
in controversy, to wit: that slavery should not be prohibited in the
State of Missouri.
MR. WzLLER.-Let the senator from New York answer that.
MR. I)OUGLAS.-I should like to hear his answer.
MR. S.wAP.D.-I desire, if I shall be obtrusive by speaking in this
way, that senators will at once signify, or that any senator will sig.
110
I 
STEPHEN  A. DOrGLAS.
nify, that I am obtrusive. But I make these explanations in thii
way, for the reason that I desire to give the honorable senator fr Dm
Illinois the privilege of hearing my answer to him as he goes along. It
is simply this: That this doctrine of compromises is, as it has been
held, that if so many northern men shall go with so many southern
men as to fix the law, then it binds the North and South alike. I therefore have but one answer to make: the vote for the restriction was
less than the northern vote given against the compromise.
M]R. DOUGLAS.-Well, now, we come to this point: We have been
told, during this debate, that you must not judge of the North by the
minority, but by the majority. You have been told, that the minority, who stood by the Constitution and the rights of the South,
were dough-faces.
MR. SEWARD.-I have not said so. I will not say so.
MR. DOUGLAS.-You have all said so in your speeches, and you
have asked us to take the majority of the North.
MR. SEWARD.-I spoke of the practical fact. I never said anything
about dough-faces.
MR. DOUGLAS.-You have asked us to take the majority instead of
the minority.
MR. SEWARD.-The majority of the country.
MR. DOUGLAS.- I am talking of the majority of the northern vote.
MR. SEwARD.-NO, sir.
MR. DOUGLAS.-I hope the senator will hear me. I wish to recall him
to the issue. I stated that the North in the House of Representatives
voted against admitting Missouri into the Union under the act of
1820, and caused the defeat of that measure; and he said that they
voted against it on the ground of the free-negro clause in her consti tution, and not upon the ground of slavery. Now, I have shown by
the evidence that it was upon the ground of slavery, as well as upon
the other ground; and that a majority of the North required not
only that Missouri should comply with the compact of 1820, so
called, but that she should go further, and give up the whole consi deration which the senator says the South received from the North
for the Missouri Compromise. The compact, he says, was that, in
consideration of slavery being permitted in Missouri, it should be
prohibited in the Territories. After having procured the prohibition
in the Territories, the North, by a majority of votes, refused to
admit Missouri as a slaveholding State, and in violation of the alleged
compact required her to prohibit slavery as a further condition of
her admission. This repudiation of the alleged compact by the North
is recorded by yeas and Days, sixty-one to thirty-three. and entered
upon the Journal, as an imperishable evidence of the fact. With this
evidence before us, against whom should the charge of perfidy be
preferred?
Sir, if this was a compact, what must be thought of those who
violated it almost immediately after it was formed?  I say it was a
Calumny upon the North to say that it was a compact: I should feel
ill 
172    THE'LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
a flush of shame upon my cheek, as a northern man, if I were to say
that it was a compact, and that the section of,the country to which
I belong received thie c(onsideration, and then repudiated the obliga tion in eleven months after it was entered into. I deny that it was a
compact in any sense of the term. But if it was, the record proves
that faith was not observed; that the contract was  never *,arri("d
into effect; that after the North had procured the passage of the
act prohibiting slavery in the Territories, with a majority in the
House large enough to prevent its repeal, Missouri was refused admni sion into the Union as a slaveholding State, in conformity with the
act of March 6, 1820. If the proposition be correct, as contended
for by the opponents of this bill, that there was a solemn compact
between the North and the Southl, that, in consideration of the pro hibition of slavery in the Territories, Missouri was to be admitted
into the Union in conformity with the act of 1820, that comnpact was
repudiated by the North and rescinded by the joint action of the
two parties within twelve months from its date. Missouri was never
admitted under the act of the 6th of March, 1820. She was refused
admission under that act. She was voted out of the Union by
northern votes, notwithstanding the stipulation that she should be
received; and, in consequence of these facts, a new compromise was
rendered necessary, by the teirms of which Missouri was to be admitted into the Union conditionally-admitted on a condition not
embraced in the act of 1820, and, in addition, to full compliance
with all the provisions of said act. Jf, then, the act of 1820, by the
eighth section of which slavery was prohibited in the Territories,
was a compact, it is clear to the comprehension of every fair-minded
man that the refusal of the North to admit Missouri, in compliance with its stipulations, and without further conditions, imposes'
upon us a high moral obligation to remove the prohibition of slavery
in the Territories, since it has been shown to have been procured
upon a condition never performed.
Mr. President, inasmuch as the senator from New York has taken
great pains to impress upon the public mind of the North the conviction that the act of 1820 was a solemn compact, the violation or
repudiation of which by either party involves perfidy and dishonor,
I wishl to call the attention of that senator (Mr. Seward) to tlhe fact,
that his own State was the first to repudiate the compact and to
instruct her senators in Congress not to admit Missouri into the
Union in compliance with it, nor unless slavery should be prohibited
in the State of Missouri.
MR. SEWARD.-That is so.
MSR. DOUGIJAS.-1 have the resolutions before me, in the printed
Journal of the Senate. The senator from New York is familiar with
the fact, and frankly admits it:
"STATE OF NEW  YORK, 
IN ASSEMBLY, _Yovembtr 18, 18209 
"Whereas the legislature of this State, at the last session, did instruct their 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
senators and request their representatives in Congress to oppose the admission,
as a State, into the Union, of any territory not comprised within the original
boundaries of the United States, without making the prohibition of slavery
therein an indispensable condition of admission; and whereas this legislature
is impressed with the correctness of the sentiments so communicated to our
senators and representatives: Therefore  " Resolved (if the honorable the Senate concur herein), That this legislature
does approve of the principles contained in the resolutions of the last session;
and further, if the provisions contained in any proposed constitution of a new
State deny to any citizens of the existing States the privileges and immunities
of citizens of such new State, that such proposed constitution should not be
accepted or confirmed; the same, in the opinion of this legislature, being void
by the Constitution of the United States. And that our senators be instructed,
and our representatives in Congress be requested, to use their utmost exertions to prevent'the acceptance and confirmation of any such constitution."
It will be seen by these resolutions, that at the previous session
the New York legislature had "instructed" the senators from that
State " to oppose the admission, as a State, into the Union of any
territory not comprised within the original boundaries of the United
States, without making the prohibition of slavery therein an indispensable condition of admission."
These instructions are not confined to territory north of 36~ 30'.
They apply, and were intended to apply, to the whole territory west
of the Mississippi, and to all territory which might hereafter be
acquired. They deny the right of Arkansas to admission as a slaveholding State, as well as Missouri.  They lay down a general principle to be applied and insisted upon everywhere, and in all cases, and
under all circumstances. These resolutions were first adopted prior
to the passage of the act of March 6, 1820, which the senator now
chooses to call a compact. But they were renewed and repeated on
the 13th of November, 1820, a little more than eigilt months after
the Missouri Compromise, as instructions to the New York senators
to resist the admission of Missouri as a slaveholding State, notwithstanding the stipulations in the alleged compact.  Now, let me ask
the senator from New York by what authority he declared and pub
lished in his speech that the act of 1820, was a compact which could
not be violated or repudiated without a sacrifice of honor, justice
and good faith. Perhaps he will shelter himself behind the resolutions of his State, which he presented this session, branding this bill
as a violation of plighted faith.
Mr. SEWARD.-Will the senator allow me a word of explanation?
]MR. DOUGLAS.-Certainly, with a great deal of pleasure.
MR. SEWARD.-I wish simply to say that the State of New York,
for now thirty years, has refused to make any compact on any terms
by which a concession should be made for the extension of slavery.
But, by the practical action of the Congress of the United States,
compromises have been made, which, it is held by the honorable
senator from Illinois and by the South, bind her against her consent
and approval. And, therefore, she stands throughout this whole
matter upon the same ground-always refusing to enter into a room
113 
114   THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
promise, always insisting upon the prohibition of slavery within the
Territories of the United States.  But, on this occasion, we stand
here with a contract which has stood for 80 years, notwithstanding
our -protest and dissent, and in which there is nothing left to be fulfilled except that part which is to be beneficial to us. All the rest has
been fulfilled, and we stand here with our old opinions on the whole
subject of compromises, demanding fulfillment on the part of the
South, which the honorable senator from Illinois on the present
occasion represents.
MR. DOUGLAS.-Mr. President, the senator undoubtedly speaks for
himself very frankly and very candidly.
MR. SEWARD.-Certainly I do.
MR. DOUGLAS.-But I deny that on this point he speaks for the
State of New York.
MR. SEWARD.-We shall see.
MR. DOUGLAS.-I will state the reason why I say so.  He has presented here resolutions of this State of New York which have been
adopted this year, declaring the act of March 6, 1820, to be a "solemn
compact."
I read from the second resolution:
" But at the same time duty to themselves and to the other States of the
UTnion demands that when an effort is making to violate a solemn compact
whereby the political power of the State and the privileges as well as the
honest sentiments of its citizens will be jeoparded and invaded, they should
raise their voice in protest against the threatened infraction of their rights,
and declare that the negation or repeal by Congress of the Missouri Compromise will be regarded by themas a violation of right and of faith, and destructive of that confidence and regard which should attach to the enactment of the
federal legislature."
Mr. President, I cannot let the senator off on the plea that I, for
the sake of the argument, in reply to him and other opponents of
this bill, have called it a compact; or that the South have called it
a compact; or that other friends of Nebraska have called it a compact which has been violated and rendered invalid.  He and his
abolition confederates have arraigned me for a violation of a compact, which, they say, is binding in morals, in conscience and honor.
I have shown that the legislature of New York, at its-present session,
has declared it to be "a solemn compact," and that its repudiation
would "be regarded by them as a violation of right, and of faitb,
and destructive of confidence and regard." I have also shown, that
if it be such a compact, the State of New York stands self-condemned and self-convicted as the first to repudiate and violate it.
But since the senator has chosen to make an issue with me in
respect to the action of New York, with the view of condemning my
conduct here, I will invite the attention of the senator to another
portion of these resolutions. Referring to the fourteenth section of
the Nebraska Bill, the legislature of New York says: 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
" That the adoption of this provision would be in derogation of the truth, a
gross violation of plighted faith, and an outrage and indignity upon the free
States of the Union, whose assent has been yielded to the admission into the
Union of Missouri and of Arkansas,  with slavery, in reliance upon the faithful
observance of the provision (now sought to be abrogated) known as the Mis
souri Compromise, whereby slavery was declared. to be " forever prohibited
in all that territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of
Louisiana, which lies north of 36~ 30' north latitude, not included within the
limits of the State of Missouri."
I have no comments to make upon the courtesy and propriety
exhibited in this legislative declaration, that a provision in a bill,
reported by a regular committee of the Senate of the United States,
and known to be approved by three-fourths of the body, and which
has since received the sanction of their votes, is " in derogation of
truth, a gross violation of plighted faith, and an outrage and indignity," etc. The opponents of this measure claim a monopoly of all
the courtesies and amenities, which should be observed among gentlemen, and especially in the performance of official duties; and I
am free to say that this is one of the mildest and most respectful
forms of expression in which they have indulged. But there is a
declaration in this resolution to which I wish to invite the particular
attention of the Senate and the country. It is the distinct allegation that "the free States of the Union," including New York,
yield their " assent to the admission into the Union of Missouri and
Arkansas, with slavery, in reliance upon the faithful observance of
the provision known as the Missouri Compromise."
Now, sir, since the legislature of New York has gone out of its
way to arraign the State on matters of truth, I will demonstrate
that this paragraph contains two material statements in direct
"derogation of truth." I have already shown, beyond controversy,
by the records of the legislature and by the journals of the Senate,
that New York never did give her assent to the admission of Missouri with slavery!  Hence, I must be permitted to say, in  the
polite language of her own resolutions, that the statement that New
York yielded her assent to the admission of Missouri with slavery is
in "derogation of truth!" and, secondly, the statement that such
assent was given "in reliance upon the faithful observance of the
Missouri Compromise" is equally "in derogation of truth."  New
York never assented to the admission of Missouri as a slave State,
never assented to what she now calls the Missouri Compromise,
never observed its stipulations as a compact, never had been willing
to carry it out; but, on the contrary, has always resisted it, as I
have demonstrated by her own records.
Mr. President, I have before me other journals, records and instructions, which prove that New York was not the only free State
that repudiated the Missouri Compromise of 1820 within twelve
months from its date. I will not occupy the time of the Senate at
this late hour of the night by referring to them, unless some opponent of the bi I renders it necessary.  In that event, I may be able
22
115 
116     T HE LIFE AND  SPEECaES OF
to pl,ace other senators and their States in the same unenviable posi
tion in which the senator from New York has found himself and his
State.
I think I have shown, that to call the act of the 6thl of March,
1820, a compact, binding in honor, is to chlarge tile northern States
of this Unioni with an act of perfidy unparalleled in the hi.itory of
legislation or of civilization. I have already adverted to the facts,
that in the summner of 1820 Missouri ftramed lher constituition, inll con formity with the act of the 6ih of lMarcli; that it was presented to
Congress at thte next session; that the Senate passed( a joint resolu tion declaring her to be one of the States of the Unio2n,,)1 an equal
footing with thle original States; and tthat the Iouse of Representa tives rejected it, and refused to allow her to come into the Unionr
because her constitution did not prohibit slavery.
These facts created the necessity for a new compromise, the old
one having failed of its object, which was, to bring Miss.ouii into tlho
Union.  At this period in the order of events-in Fet)bruary, 1821,
when the excitement was almost beyond restraint, and a great tfundamenital principle, involving the riglit of the people of the new
States to regulate their own drmestic institutions, was d(livi(iirg the
Union into two great hostile parties -Henry Clay, of Keiitttckv,
came forward with a new compromise, which had the effect to
change the issue, and  make the result of thie controversy turn
upon a different point.  Hle brought in a resolution for the adoiiission
of Missouri into the Union, not in pursuance of the act of 1820, not
in obedience to the understanding when it was adopted, and not
with her constitution as it had been formed in conformity with that
act, but he proposed to admit Missouri into the Union upon a "fundamental condition," which condition was to be in the nature of a
solemn compact between the United States on the one pailt and the'
State of Missouri on the other part, and to whicll "furndameltal condition " the State of Missouri was required to declaire her assent in
the form of "a solemn public act."  This joint resolution passe(l, and
was approved March 2, 1821, and is known as Mr. Clay's Miss.ouri
Compromise, in contradistinction to that of 1820, which was introduced into the Senate by Mr. T-homnas, of Illinois. In the month of
June, 1821, the legislature of Missouri assemb'led and passed the
" soiemn public act," and furnished an authenticated copy thereof to
the President of the United States, in compliance with Mr. Clay's
compromise, or joint resolution. On August 10, 1821, James Monroe, President of the United States, issued his proclamation, in which,
after reciting the fact that on the 2d of Marchl, 1821, Congress had
passed a joint resolution "providing for the admission of the State of
Missouri into the Union, on a certain condition;" and that the general assembly of Missouri, on the 26th of June, having, " by a solemn
public act, declared the assent of the said State of Missouti to the
fundamet tal condition contained in said j(,int resolution," and having
furnished him with an authentic copy thereof, he, " int pursuace oj 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
the resolution of Congress aforesaid," declared thie admission of Mis.
souri to be complete.
I do not deem it necessary to discuss the question whether the
conditions upon which Missouri was admitted were wise or unwise.
It is sufficient for my present purpose to remark, that the " fundamental condition" of her admission related to certain clauses in the
constitution of Missouri in respect to the migration of free negroes
into that State; clauses similar to those now in force in the consti.
tutions of Illinois and Indiana, and l)erhaps other States; clauses
similar to the provisions of law in force at that time in many of the
old States of the Union; and, I will add, clauses which, in my opinion, Missouri had a right to adopt under the Constitution of the
United States. It is no answer to this position to say, that thoe
clauses in the constitution of Missouri were in violation of the Constitution.  If they did conflict with the Constitution of the United
States, they were void; if they were not in conflict, Missouri had a
right to put them there, and to pass all laws necessary to carry them
into effect. Whether such conflict did exist is a question which, by
the Constitution, can orly be determined authoritatively  by  tie
Supreme Court of the United States.  Congress is not the apl)ropriate and competent tribunal to adjudicate and determine Questions of
conflict between the constitution of a State and that of the United
States. Had Missouri been admitted without any condition or restriction, she would have had an opportunity of vindicating her cons
stitotionr and rights in the Supreme Court-the tribunal created by
the Coinstitution for that purpose.
By the condition imposed on Missouri, Congress not only deprived
that State of a right whlich she believed she possessed under the constitution of the United States, but denied her the privilege of vindicating that right in the appropriate and constitutional tribunals, by
compelling her, "by a solemn public act," to give an irrevocable
pledge never to exercise cr claim the right. Therefore Missouri
came in under a humiliating condition —a condition not imposed by
the Constitution of the United States, and which  destroys the principle of equality which should exist, and by the Constitution does not
exist, between all the States of this Union.  This inequality resulted
frozn Mr. Clay's compromise of 1821, and is the principle upon which
that compronmise was constructed.  I own that the act is couched in
general terms and vague plhrases, and therefore may possibly be so
construed as not to deprive the State of any right she might possess under the Constitution. Upon that point I wish only to say,
that such a construction makes the " fundamental condition" void,
while the opposite construction would demonstrate it to be unconstitutional.  I have before me the "solemn public act" of Misf3ouri
to this fundamental condition. whoever will take the trouble to
read it will find it the richest specimen of irony and sarcasm that has
ever been incorporated into a public act.
Sir, in view of these facts I desire to call the attention of the sor
117 
118     THE LIFE AND  SPEECHES O0P
ator from New York to a statement in his speech, upon which the
greater part of his argument rested.  His statement was, and it is
now being published in every abolition paper, and repeated by the
whole tribe of abolition orators and lecturers, that Missouri was
admitted as a slaveholding State, under the act of 1820; while I have
slhown, by the President's proclamation of August 10, 1821, that she
was admitted in pursuance of the resolution of March ~, 1821.
Thus it is shown that the material point of his speech is contradicted by the highest evidence-the record in the cae.  Tlhe same
statement I believe was made by the senator fromn Connecticut (Mr.
Siitli), and the senators from Ohio (Mr. Chase and Mr. Wa(le), and
thle senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner).  Eaci of these senators made and repeated tlhis statement, and upon the strength of this
erroneous assertion called upon us to carry into effect the eighth section of the same act.  The material fact upon which their arguments
rested being overthrown, of course their conclusions are erroneous
and deceptive.
Ma. SEWARD.-I hope the senator will yield for a moment, because
I have never had so much respect for him as I have to night.
MIR DOUGLAS.-I see what course I have to pursue in order to com'na.nd the senator's respect.  I know now how to get it.  (Lauighter.)
MB. SEWARD.-Any man who meets me boldly commands  my respect.  I say that Missouri would not not have been adinittted at all
into the Union by the United States except upon the compromise
of 1820. When that point was settled about the restriction of sla'very it was settled in this way; that she should come in with slavery
and that all the rest of thle Louisiana purchase, which is now known
as Nebraska, should be forever firee from slavery. Missouri adopted
a constitution, which was thoughlt by the northern States to infringe
upon the right of citizenship guaranteed by the Constitution of the
United States, which was a new point altogether; and upon that
point debate was held, and uponi it, a new coinlromise was made, and
Missouri caine into thle Union upon the agreemnent, that, in regard to
thlat question, she submitted to the Constitution of the United States,
and so she was admitted into the Union.
MR. DOUGLAS.-Mr. President, I must remind the senator again
thl,at I have already proven that he was in error in stating that thle
North objected to the admission of Missouri merely on account of the
free-negro clause in her constitution. I have proven by the vote
that the North objected to her admission because she tolerated slavery; this objection was sustained by the North by a vote of nearly
two to one.  He cannot shelter himself, therefore, under  the fieenegro dodge, so long as there is a distinct vote of the North objecting
to lher admission; because, in addition to complying with the act of
1820, slhe did not also prohibit slavery, which was the only consideratioun.tlat the South was to have for agreeing to the prohibition of
slavery in the Territories.  Then, having deprived the senator, by
conclusive evidence from the records, of that prete.xt what do I dri vf 
STEPHEN A. DO UGLAS.
him to? I compel him to acknowledge that a new compromise was
made.
MR. SEwARD.-Certainly there was.
MR. DOUGLAS.-Then, I ask, why was it made?  Because the
North would not carry out the first one.  And the best evidence
that the North did not carry out the first one is the senator's admission that the South was compelled to submit to a new one. Then, if
there was a new compromise made, did Missouri come in under the
new one or the old one?
MR. SEWARD. —Under both.
MR. DOUGLAS.-Tliis is the first time, in this debate, it has been
intimated that Missouri came in under two acts of Congress. The
senator did not allude to the resolution of 1821 in his speech; none
of the opponents of this bill have said it.  But it is now admitted
that she (lid not come into the Union under the act of 1820 alone.
She had been voted out under the first compromise, and this vote
compelled her to make a new one, and she came in under the new
one; and yet the senator from New York, in his speech, declared to
the world that she came in under the first one.  Thisis not an iimmaterial question. His whole speech rests upon that misapprehension or
mis.statement of the record.
MR. SEWARD.-You had better say misapprehension.
Mn. DOUGLAS.-Very well.  We will call it by that name.  His
whole argument depends upon that misapprehension. After stating
that the ac'i of 1820 was a compact, and that the North performed its
part of it in good faith, he arraigns the friends of this bill for proposing to annul the eighth section of the act of 1820 without first turning Missouri out of the Union, in order that slavery may be abolished therein by the act of Congress. He says to us, in substance:
"Gentlemen, if you are going to rescind the compact, have respect
for that great law of morals, of honesty, and of conscience which
compels you first to -surrender the consideration which you have
received'under the compact.'" I concur with him in regard to
the obligation to restore the consideration when a contract is
rescinded. And inasmuch as the prohibition in the Territories north
of 36~ 30' was obtained, according to his own statement, by an
agreement to admit Missouri as a slaveholding State on an equal
footing with the original States, " in all respects whatsoever," as spe.
cified in the first section of the act of 1820; and, inasmuch as
Missouri was refused admission under said act, and was compelled to
submit to a new compromise in 1821, and was then received into the
Union on a fundamental condition of inequality, I call on him and
bis abolition confederates to restore the consideration which they
have received, in the shape of a prohibition of slavery north of 86~
80', under a compromise which they repudiated, and refused to carry
into effect. I call on them to correct the erroneous statement in
respect to the admission of Missouri, and to make a restitution of
the consideration by voting for this bill.  I repeat, that this is no
lis 
120    THE LIFE AND SPEECHE S OF
an immaterial statement. It is the point upon which the abolitionists
rest their whole argument. They could not get up a show of pretext against the great principle of self-government involved in thlis
bill, if they could not repl)eat all the time, as the senator fron New
York did in his speech, that Missouri came into the Ullion with)
slavery, in conformity to the colnml)act which was made. by the act
of 1820, and that the South, having received the consideration, is
now trying to cheat the North out of her part of the benefits. I
have proven that, after abolitionism had gained its points so far as
the eighth section of the act prohibited slavery in the Territory,
Missouri was denied admission by northern votes until she entered
into a compactby which she was understood to surrender an importaut right now exercised by several States of the Union.
Mr. President, I did not wish to refer to these things. I did not
understand them fully in all their bearings at the time I made my
first speech on this subject; and, so far as I was familiar with tlhem,
I r'ade as little reference to them as was consistent with my duty;
because it was a mortifying reflection to nme, as a northern rian, that
we had not been able, in consequence of thle abolition excitement
at the time, to avoid the appearance of bad faith in th-e obser an(e
of legislation, which has been denominated a compromise.  Thlere
were a few men then, as there are now, who had the moral coulage
to pcrform their duty to the cointry and the Constitution, regardless
of consequences personal to themselves.  There were tea, northern
men who dared to perform their duty by voting to admit ialissouri
into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and with
no other restriction than that imposed by the Constitution.  I am
aware that they were abused anrid denounced as we are now; that
they were branded as dough-faces, traitors to freedom, and to the
section of the country whenice they comne.
IMI. GEYER.-Tlhey honored Mr. Lanman, of Connecticut, by burning him in effigy.
Ml. DOtGLAS.-Yes, sir; these abolitionists honored Mr. Lanman
in Connecticut just as they are honoring me in Boston, and other
places, by burning me in efigy.
Mn. CAss.-It will do you no harm.
MR. DOUGLAS.-Well, sir, I know it will not; but why this burning
in effigy?  It is the legitimate consequences of the address whlich
was sent forth to the world by certain senators, whom I denominated,
on a former occasion, as the abolition confederates.  The senator
from  Ohio presented here the other day a resolution-lie says unintentionally, and I take it so-declaring that every senator who advocated this bill was a traitor to his country, to hlumanity, and to God(;
and even he seemed to be shocked at the results of his own advice
when it was exposed. Yet lie did not seem to know that it was, in
substance, what lie had advised in his address, over his own signllature, -when he called upon the people to assemble in public meetiligs
and thunder forth their indignation at the criminal betrayal of pre 
S TE PiE N  A. DOUGLA S.
e-ous rights; when he appealed to ministers of the Gospel tc desecrate
their holy calling, and attempted to inflame passions, and fanaticism,
and prejudice against senators who would not cot,sider tlielnselves
very h-ighily complimented by being called his equals? And yet, when
the natural consequences of his own action and advice came back
upon him, and he presents them here, and is called to an account for
the indecency of the act, he professes his profound regret and surpriso
that anything should have occurred wliicl-i could possibly be deemed
unkind or disrespectful to any member of this boAdy!
*       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *
The senator's explanation does not help him at al.  He says ho
did not state under what act Missouri came in; but he dlid say, as I
understood him, that the act of 1820 was a comnpact, and that, according to tlhat compact, Missouri was to come in with slavery, provided
slavery should be prohibited in certain Territories, and did comre in
in pursuance of the compact. Hle now uses the word "compact."
To what compact does he allude? Is it not to the act of 1820?  If he
d(lid not, what becomes of iis conclusion that the eighth section of that
act is irrepealable? Hle will not venture to deny that his reference
was to the act of 1820. Did he refer to the joint resolution of 1821,
under which Missouri was admnitted? If so, we do not propose to
repeal it.  We admit that it was a compact, and that its obligations
are irrevocably fixed. But that joint resolution does not prohibit
slavery in the Territories. The Nebraska Bill does not propose to
repeal it, or imnpair its obligation in any way. Then, sir, why not
take back your correction, and admit that you did mean the act of
1820, when you spoke of irrevocable obligations and compacts?
Assuming then, that the senator m,eant what he is now unwilling
either to admit or deny, even while professing to correct me, that
Missouri came in under the act of 1820, I aver that I have proven
that she did not come into the Union under that act. I have proven
that she was refused admission under that alleged compact.   I
have, therefore, proven incontestably that the material statement
upon which his argument rests is wholly without foundation, and
unequivocally contrad(licted by the record.
Sir, I believe I may say the same of every speech which has been
made against the bill, upon the ground that it impared the obligation
of compacts.  There has not been an argument against the measure,
every word of which in regard to the faith of compacts is not con tradicted by the public records. What I complain of is this: The
people tnay think that a senator, having the laws and journals before
him, to which he could refer, would not make a statement in contra diction of those records. They make the people believe these tlhings,
and cause them to do great injustice to others, under the delusion
that thley have been wronged, and their feelings ortraged. Sir, tlisi
address did for a time mislead the whole country.  It made the legis lature of New York believe that the act of 1820 wan a compact which
it would be disgraceful to violate; and, acting under that delusioe
121 
122    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OP
they framed a series of resolutions, which, if true and just, convict
that State ol E n act of perfidy and treachery unparalleled in the his tory of free gorprnments.  You see, thelefore, the consequence of
these mnisstatements.  You degrade your own State, and induce the
people, under the impression that they have been injured; to get up
a violent crusade against those whose fidelity and truthfulness will in
the end command their respect and admiration. In consequence of
arousing passions and prejudices, I ain now to be found in effigy,
hanging by the neck, in all the towns where you have the influence
to produce such a result.  In all these excesses, the people are yield.
ing to an honest impulse, under the impression that a grievous
wrong has been perpetrated. You have had your day of triumnph.
You have succeeded in directing upon the heads of others a torrent
of insult and calumny fiom which even you shrink with horror, when
the fact is exposed that you have become the conduits for conveying
it into this hall. In your State, sir (addressing himself to Mr. Chase)
I find I am burnt in effigy in your abolition towns. All this is done
because I have proposed, as it is said, to violate a compact I Now,
what will those people think of you when they find out that you
have stimnulated them to these acts, which are disgraceful to your
State, disgraceful to your party, and disgraceful to your cause, under
a misrepresentation of the facts, which misrepresentation you ought
to have been aware of, and should never have been made.
MB. CIASE.-Will the senator permit me to say a few words?
MR. DOUGLAS.-Certainly.
Me. CHAsiE.-Mr. President. I certainly regret that anything has
occurred in my State which should be otherwise than in accordance
with the disposition which I trust I have ever manifested to treat
the senator from Illinois with entire courtesy. I do not wish, however, to be understood, here or elsewhere, as retracting any statenlent which I have made, or being unwilling to reassert that stateme!,t when it is directly impeached.  I regard the admission of Missouri, and the facts of the transaction connected with it, as constituting a compact between the two sections of the country; a part of
which was fulfilled in the admission of Missouri, another part in the
admnission of Arkansas, and other parts of which have been fulfilled in
the admission of Iowa, and the organization of Minnesota, but which
yet remains to be-fulfilled in respect to the Territory of Nebraska,
and wlhich, in my judgment, will be vi,nalated by the repeal of the
Missouri prohibition. That is my jl(lgment.  I hlave no quarrel with
senators who differ with me; but upon the whole facts of the transaction, however, I have not changed my opinion at all, in consequence of what has been said by the honorable senator from Illinois.
I say that the facts of -the transaction, taken together, and as understood by the country for more than thirty years, constitute a campact biiding in moral force; though, as I have always said, being
embodied in a legislative act, it may be repealed by Congress, if Coagrees see fit. 
BTE PH E N A. DOUG LA S.
MR. DOCGLAS.-Mr- President, I am sorry that the senator from
fliio has repeated the statement that Missouri came  in under the
compact which hle says was made by the act of 1820.  How many
times have I to disprove the statement? Does not thie vote to wlhichi
I have referred show tl,at such was not the case? Does not the fact
that there was a necessity for a new compromise show it?  Have  1
not proved it three times over? and is it possible that tlle senator
from Olhio will repeat it in the face of the record, with the vote star,ng him in the face and with the evidence which I have produced(?
Does he suppose that he can make his own people believe that his
statement ought to be credited in opposition to tlih solemn record?
[ am amazed that the senator should repeat the statement again
unsustained by the fact, by the record, and by the evidence, and
overwhelmed by the whole current and weight of the testimony
which I have produced.
The senator says, also, that he never intended to do me injustice,
and he is sorry that the people of l]is State have acted in the manner
to which I have referred.  Sir, did he not say, in the same documtnent
to whichI I have already alluded. that I was engaged, with others, in
"a criminal betrayal of precious rights," in an "atrocious plot?"
Did he not say that I and others were guilty of "meditated bad
faith?"  Are not these his exact words?  Did he not say thlat "servile demagogues " might make the people believe certain things, or
attempt to d(, so I  Did he not say everything calculated to produce
and bring upon my lihead all the insults to which I have been subjected publicly and privately-not even excepting the insulting letters which I have received from his constituents, rejoicing at my
domestic bereavements, and praying that other and similar calamities may befall me? All these have resulted from that address. I
expected such consequences when I first saw it. In it he called upon
the preachers of the Gospel to prostitute the sacred desk in stimulating excesses; and then, for fear that the people would not know
who it was that was to be insulted and calumniated, he told them,
in a postscript, that Mr. Douglas was the author of all this iniquity,
and that they ought not to allow their rights to be made the hazard
of a Presidential game!  After having used such language, he says
meant no disrespect-he meant nothing unkind!  He was amazed
that I sald in my opening speech that there was anything offensive
in this address; and hlie could not suffer himself to use harsh epithets,
or to impugn a gentleman's motives!  No! not he!  After having
deliberately written all these insults, impugning motive and character, and calling upon our holy religion to sanctify the calumny, helie
could not think of losing his dignity by bandying epithets, or using
harsh and disrespectful terms I
Mr. President, 1 expected all that has occurred, and more than
has come, as the legitimate result of that address. The things to
which I referred are the natural consequences of it. Tile only revenge I seek is to expose the authors, and leave them to bear, as best
123 
124     THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
they may, the just indignation of ar honest community, wlien tIe
people discover how their sympatlides and feelings have been outraged, by making them the instruments in p)erfolriaing such desperate acts. 
Sir, even in Boston 1 have been hung in effigy.  I may say that I
expected it to occur even there, for the senator fromn Massachlusetts
lives there. He signed his name to that address; and for fear the
Boston abolitionists would not know thlat it was he, he signed it
" Cliarles Sumner, senator firoi Massacliusetts."  The first outrage
was in Ohio, where the address was circulated under the signature
of "Sallnon P. Chase, senator fromn Olhio."  The niext caine fromn
Boston-the same  Boston, sir. which, under the direction of the
same leaders, closed Faneuil Hall to the immortal Webster in 1850,
because of his support of the Compromise measures of that year,
which all now confess have restored peace and harmony to a distracted country.  Yes, sir, even Boston, so glorious in her early history-Boston, around whose name so many  historical associations
cling, to gratify the heart and exalt the pride of every Amnericancould be led astray by abolition misrepresentations so far as'to deny
a hearing to her own great  oan, who had shed so inuch glory upon
Massaclhusetts and her metropolis! I know tl)at Boston now feels
humiliated and degraded by the act. And, sir (add(ressing hlinself to
Mr. Sunnner), you will remember that when you came into the Senate, and sought an opportunity to put forth your aboliti,n incendiarism, you appealed to our sense of justice by the sentiment, "Strike,
but hear me first."  But when Webster went back in 1850 to speak
to his constituents in his own self-defence, to tell the truth, and to
expose his slanderers, you would not hear lii m, but you struck first!
Again, sir, even Boston, with her Faneuil Hall consecrated to
liberty, was so far led astray by abolitionism, that when one of her
gallant sons-gallant by his own glorious deeds, il)nheriting a heroic
Revolutionary name, had given his life to his country upon the bloody
field of Buena Vista; and when his remains were brought home,
even that Boston, under abolition guidance and abolition preachling,
denied him a decent burial, because lie lost his life in vindicating his
country's hlonor upon the southern frontier! Even the name of Lincoln, and the deeds of Lincoln, could not secure for him a decent
internmet, because abolitionism follows a patriot beyond the grave.
(Applause in the galleries.)
TilE PREsIDING OFFICER (MR. MAsON in the chair).-Order must
be preserved.
MR. DOIUGLAS.-Mr. President, with these facts before me, how
could I hope to escape the fate which had followed these great and
good men? While I had no right to hope that I might be honored as
they had been, under abolition auspices, have I not a right to be
proud of the distinction and the association? Mr. President, I regret
these digressions.  I have not been able to follow the line of argument which I had marked out for myself, because of the many inter 
STEPHEE  A. DOUGLAS.
ruptions. I do not complain of them. It is fair that gentlemen
should make them, inasmuch as they have not the opportunity ol
replying; hence I have yielded the floor, and propose to do so clieerfiully whenever any senator intimates that justice to himi or his position requires him to say anything in reply.
Returning to the po?nt fiom which I was diverted:
I think I have shown that, if the act of 1826, called the Missouri
Compromise, was a compact, it was violated and repudiated by a
solelin vote of the House of Rel)resentatives in 1821, within eleven
months after it was adopted. It was repudiated by the North by a
mnjority vote, and that repudiation was so complete and successful as
to compel Missouri to make a new compromise, and she was brought
into the Union under the new compromise of 1821, and not under
the act of 1820.  This reminds me of another point made in nearly
all thle speeches against this bill, and, if I recollect right, was alluded
to in the abolition manifesto; to which, I regret to say, I had occasion to refer so often. I refer to the significant hint that Mr. Clay
was dead before any one dared to bring forward a proposition to
undo the greatest work of his hands.  The senator fio()r  New York
(Mr. Seward) has seized uponr this insinuation, and elaborated it, perhaps, more fully than his comnpeers; and now the abolition press
sudldenl]y, and as if by miraculous conversion, teems with eulogies
upon Mr Clay and his Missourii Compromise of 1820.
Now, Mr. President, does not each of these senators know that Mr.
Clay was not the author of the act of 1820?  Do they not know that
lie disclaimed it in 1850 in this body? Do they not know that the
Missouri restriction did not originate in the house of which he was a
member?  Do they not know that Mr. Clay never came into the Missouri controversy as a compromiser until after the compromise of
1820 was repudiated, and it became necessary to make another?  I
dislike to be compelled to repeat what I have conclusively proven,
that the compromise which Mr Clay effected was the act of 1821, under which Missouri came into the Union, and not the act of 1820.
Mr. Clay made that compromise after you had repudiated the first
one. How, then, dare you call upon the spirit of that great and gallaut statesman to sanction your charge of bad faith against the South
on this question 
MR. SEwARD.-Will the senator allow me a moment?
MR. DOUGLAS.-Certainly.
MR. SEWARD.-In the year 1851 or 1852, I think 1851, a medal was
struck in honor of Henry Clay, of gold, which cost a large sum of
money, which contained eleven acts of the life of Henry Clay.  It
was presented to him by a committee of citizens of New York, by
whom it had been made. One of the eleven acts of his life which
was celebrated on that medal, which he accepted, was the Missouri
Compromise of 1820.  This is my answer.
MR. DOiUGLAS.-Are the words " of 1820" upon it?
MR. SEWARD.-It commemorates the Missouri Compromis
125 
126    LIFE  OF STEPIHEN  A. DO' GLAS.
MR. DOUGLAS.-Exactly.   I have seen thlat medal; and my reco
lection is that it does not conftain the words " of 1820."  One of the
great acts of Mr. Clay was the Missouri Compromise, but what Mis.
souri Compromise? Of course, the one which Henry Clay made, the
one which lie negotiated, the one whiich brought Missouri -into the
Union, and which s(-ttled the controversy.  That was the act of 1821,
and not the act of 1820.  It tends to confirm the statement whicli I
have made. Historv is misread(l and iisquiioted, anrid tlhese statements
have been circulated and disseminated broadcast tlhrough t le count y,
concealing tile truth.  Does not the senator know that Henry Clay,
when occupying that seat in 1850 (p)ointinig to  Mr. Clay's chai:), iil
his speech of the 6thl of February of' that year, said tlat nothing hal
struck him with so much surpi'ise as the fact that historical cir(uriiistances soon passed out of recollection; and he iii~taiced as a case in
point, the error of attributing to hiui the act of 1820.  (Mr. Seward
nodded assent.)  The senator from New  York says tljat li does
remember that Mr. Clay did say so.  If so, how is At, then, th,at he
presumes now to rise and quote that medal as evidence that I-henry
Clay was the author of the act of 1820?
MAR. SEWARD.-I answer the senator in this way:  that Henry Clay,
while lie said he did not disavow or disapprove of that coriip'()iis,3e,
transferred the merit of it to others who were more active in procuring it than he, wliile-he had- einjoyed the praise and the glory which
were due from it.
MR. DOUGLAs.-TO that I have only to say, that it cannot be the
reason; for iHenry Clay, in that same speech, did take to liiiiiseif the
merit of the compromise of 1821, and hence it could riot have been
modesty which made him disavow the other. He said that he did
not know whether lie had voted for the act of 1820 or not; but he
supposed that he had done so.  He  furthermore said that it did not
originate in thie house of which hlie was a memnber, and that lie never
did approve of its prirnciples; but that he may have voted, and probably-did vote for it, under the pressure of thle circumstances.
Now, Mr. President, as I have been doing justice to. Mr. Clay on
this question, perhaps I may as well do justice to another great mian,
who was associated with him in carrying through the gleat measures
of ]1850, which mortified the senator from  New  Yoi'k so much,
because they defeated his purpose of carrying on the agitation.  I
allude to Mr. Webster.  The authority of his great name has been
quoted for the purpose of proving that he regarded the Missouri Act
as a compact-an irrepealable compact.  Evidently the distinguished
senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Everett) supposed that hlie was doir.ng
Mr. Webster entire justice when lie quoted the passage which lie read
from Mr. Webster's speech of the 7th of March, 1850, when lie said
that he stood upon the position that every part of the Aiiierican continent was fixed for freedom or for slavery by irrepeal-;le law.
The senator says that, by the expression "irrel:)ealable law," Mr.
Webster meant to include the compromise of 1820. Now, I wil!
;i 
STEPHEN  A. DOUITGLAS.
Flow that that was not Mr. Webster's meaning  tliat he was never
guilty of the mistake of saying that the Missouri Act of 1820 was an
irrepealable law.  Ml. Webster said in that speech; tiaat every f)ot
Df territory in the United States was fixed as to its character for freedomn or slavery by an irrepealable law.  He then inquired if it was
not so in regard to Texas? He went on to prove that it was; because, hlie said, there was a compact in express termis between Texas
and the United States.  Hle said the parties were capable of contractlng, and that there was'a valuable consideration; and thence, lie contended, that in that case there was a contract binding in lonor, and
morals, and law; and that it was irrepealable without a breach of
faith.
He went on to say:
" Now, as to California and New Mexico, I hold slavery to be excluded from
those Territories by a law even superior to that which admits and sanctions it
in Texas-I mean the law of nature, of physical geography, the law of tho
formation of the earth."
That was the irrepealable law wlheli he said prohibited slavery in
the Territories of Utah and New Mexico.   He next went on to speak
of the prohibition of slavery in Oregon, and lie said it wVas an "entirely useless, and, in that connection, senseless proviso."
Hie went further, and said:
"That the whole territory of the States in the United States, or in the
newly-acquired territoryof the United States, has a fixed and settled character,
now fixed and settled by law, which cannot be repealed in the case of Texas
without a violation of public faith, and cannot be repealed by any human
power in regard to California or New Mexico; that, under one or other of these
laws, every foot of territory in the States, or in the Territories, has now
received a fixed and decided character."
What irrepealable laws?  "One or the other" of those which he
had stated. One was the Texas compact, the other the law of nature
and physical geography; and he contended that one or the other
fixed the character of the whole American continent for freedom or
for slavery. He never alluded to the Missouri Compromise, unless it
was by the allusion to the Wilmot Proviso in the Oregon Bill, and
there he said it was a useless, and, in that connection, senseless
tiing.  Why was it a useless and a senseless thing?  Because it was
re-enacting the law of God; because slavery had already been prohibited by physical geography. Sir, that was the meaning of Mr.
Webster's speech.  My distinguished friend from Massachusetts (Mr.
Everett), when he reads the speech again, will be utterly amazed to
see how he fell into such an egregious error as to suppose that Mr.
Webster had so far fallen from his high position as to say that the
Missouri Act of 1820 was an irrepealable law.
MR. EvERETT.-Will the gentleman give way for a moment?
MR. DOUGLAs.-With great pleasure.
Mm. EVERETT. —What I said on that subject was, that Mr. Webst.er
127 
128     THE LIFE AND SP.EECHES OF
in my opinion, considered the Missouri Compromise as of the nature
of a compact. It is true, as the senator from Illinois has just stated,
that Mr. Webster made no allusion, in express terms, to the subject
of the Missouri restriction. But I thought then, and I think now
that lie referred in general termrs to that as a final settlement of the
question, in the region to which it applied. It was not drawn in
question then on citlier side of the House. Nobody suggested that
it was at stake. Nobody intimated that there was a question before tfhe
Senate whether that restriction should be repealed or should remain in
force. It was not distinctly, and in terms, alluded to, as the gentle man correctly says, by Mr. Webster or anybody else. - What he said
in reference to Texas, applied to Texas alone. What he said in refer ence to Utah and New Mexico, applied to them alone; and what he
said with regard to Oregon, to that Territory alone.  But he stated
in general terms, and four or five times, in the speech of the 7th of
March, 1850, that there was not a foot of land in the United States
or its Territories, the character of which, for freedom of slavery, was
not fixed by some irrepealable law; and I did think then, and I
think now, that by the " irrepealable law," as far as concerned the
territory north of 36~ 30' and included in the Louisiana purchase,
Mr. Webster had reference to the Missouri restriction, as regarded as
of the nature of a compact.  That restriction was copied from one
of the provisions of the Ordinance of 1787, which are declared in
that instrument itself to be articles of compact. The Missouri
restriction is the article of the Ordinance of 1787 applied to the
Louisiana purchase. That this is the correct interpretation of Mr.
Webster's language, is confirmed by the fact that he said more than
once, and over again, that all the North lost by the arrangement of
1859, was the non-imposition of the Wilmot Proviso upon Utah and
New Mexico.  If, -n addition to that, the North had lost the Missouri
restriction over the whole of the Louisiana purchase, could he have
used language of that kind, and would he not have attempted, in
some way or other, to reconcile such a momentous fact with his
repeated statements that the measures of 1850 applied only to the
territories newly acquired from Mexico?
MR. DOUGLAS.-M r. President, I will explain that matter  very
quickly. Mr. Webster's speech was made on the 7th of March, 1850,
and the Territorial bills and the Texas boundary bill were first reported to the Senate by myself on the 25th of the same month. Mr.
Webster's speech was made upon Mr. Clay's resolution, when there
was no bill pending. Then the Omnibus Bill was formed about the
1st of May subsequently; and hence this explains the reason why
Mr. Webster did not refer to the principle involved in these acts, and
to the necessary effect of carrying out the principle.
MR. EVEPETT.-The expression of Mr. Webster, which I quoted in
my remarks on the 8th of February, was from a speech of Mr. Soul6's
amendment, offered, I think, in June. In addition to this, I have
before me an extract from a still later speech of Mr. Webster, made 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
quite late in the session, on the 17th of July, 1850, in which he rein
erated that statement. In it he said:
" And now, sir, what do Massachusetts and the North, the anti-slavery Stat s,
lose by this adjustment? What is it they lose? I put that question to eve ry
gentleman here, and to every gentleman in the country. They lose the ap l.lization of what is called the' Wilmot Proviso' to these Territories, and that is
all. There is nothing else, I suppose, that the whole North are ndt ready to (to.
They wish to get California into the Union; they wish to quiet New Mlexi( o;
they desire to terminate the dispute about the Texan boundary in any reaa )nable manner, cost what it reasonably may. They make no sacrifice in all tl at.
What they do sacrifice is exactly this: The application of the'Wilmot Prov.so'
to'the Territory of New Mexico and the Territory of Utah, and that is all."'
Could Mr. Webster have used language like this if he had une erstood that, at the same time, the non-slaveholding States were losing
the Missouri restriction, as applied to the whole vast territory included in the bills now before the Senate?
MR. DOUGLAS.-Of course that was all, and if he regarded the MissQuri prohibition in the same light that he did the Oregon prohibition, it was a useless, and, in that connection, a senseless proviso;
and hence the North lost nothing by not having that same senseless,
useless proviso applied to Utah and New Mexico. Now, to show the
senator that he must be mistaken as to Mr. Webster's authority, let
me call his attention back to this passage in his 7th of March speech:
"Under one or other of these laws, every foot of territory in the States or
Territories has now received a fixed and decided character."
What laws did he refer to when he spoke of "one or other of these
laws?"  He had named but two, the Texas compact and the law of
nature, of climate, and physical geography, which excluded slavery.
He had mentioned none other; and yet he says "one or other"' pr(hibited slavery in all the States or Territories-thus'including Nebraska, as well as Utah and New Mexico.
MR. EvERETT.-That was not drawn in question at all.
MR. DOUGLAS.-Then if it was not drawn in question, the speech
should not have been quoted in support of the Ml-ssouri Compromnise.
It is just what I complain of, that, if it was not thus drawn in question, that use ought not to have been made of it. Now,'Mr. President, it is well-known that Mir. Webster supported the Compromise
measures of 1850, and the principle involved in tliem, of leaving the
people to do as they pleased upon this subject. I think, therefore,
that I have shown that these gentlemen are not authorized to quote
the name either of Mr. Webster-or Mr. Clay in support of the position which they take, that this bill violates the faith of compacts.
Sir, it was because Mr. Webster went for giving the people in the
Territories the right to do as they pleased upon the subject of slavery,
and because he was in favor of carrying out the Constitution in regard to fugitive slaves, that he was not allowed to speak in F'neui]
lall.
121) 
130   THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
MBR. EVERETT.-That was not my fault.
MB. DOUGLAS.-I know it was not; but I say it was because he
took that position; it was because he did not go for a prohibitory
policy; it was because he advocated the same principles which I now
advocate, because he went for the same provisions in the Utah Bill
which I now sustain in this bill, that Boston abolitionists. turned
their backs upon him, just as they burnt me in effigy. Sir, if identity
of principle, if identity of support as friends, if identity of enemies
fix Mr. Webster's position, his authority-is certainly with us, and not
with the abolitionists. I have a right, therefore, to have the sympa thies of his Boston friends with me, as I sympathized with him when
the same principle was involved.                      -
Mr. President, I am sorry that I have taken up so much time; but
I must notice one or two points more. So much has been said about
the Missouri Compromise Act, and about a faithful compliance with
it by the North, that I must follow that matter a little further. The
senator from Ohio (Mr. Wade) has referred, to-night, to the fact that
I went for carrying out the Missouri Compromise in the Texas resolutions of 1845, and in 1848, on several occasions; and he actually
proved that I never abandoned it until 1850. He need not have
taken the pains to prove that fact; for he got all his information on
the subject from my opening speech upon this bill. I told you then
that I was willing, as a northern man, in 1845, when the Texas question arose, to carry the Missouri Compromise line through that State,
and in 1848 I offered it as an amendment to the Oregon Bill. Although I did not like the principle involved in that act, yet I was
willing, for the sake of harmony, to extend to the Pacific, and abide
by it in good faith, in order to avoid the slavery agitation. The
Missouri Compromise was defeated then by the same class of politicians who are now combined in opposition to the Nebraska Bill. It
was because we were unable to carry out that compromise, that a
necessity existed( for making a new one in 1850. And thl.en we established this great principle of self-government which lies at the foundation of all our institutions.  What does his charge amount to?
He charges it, as a matter of offence, that I struggled in 1845 and in
1848 to observe good faith; and he and his associates defeated my
purpose, and deprived me of the ability to carry out what he now
says is the plighted faith of the nation.
Sir, as I have said, the South were willing to agree to the Missouri
Compromise in 1818.  When it was proposed by me to the Oregon
Bill, as an amendment, to extend that line to the Pacific, the South
agreed to it. The Senan'e adopted that -proposition, and the House
voted it down. Il 1850, after the Omnibus Bill had broken down,
and we proceeded to pass the Compromise measures separately, I
proposed, when the Utah Bill was under discussion, to make a slight
variation of the boundary of that Territory, so as to include the Mormon settlements, and not with reference to any other question; and
it was suggested thlat we shoul- take the line of 36~ 30'.  That would 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
have accomplished the local objects of the amendment very well.
But when I proposed it, what did these freesoilers say? What did
the senator from New Hampshire (MAIr. Hale), who was then their
leader in this body, say? Here are his words:
" Mr. HIALE.-I wish to say a word as a reason why I shall vote against the
amendment.  I shall vote against 36~ 30'. because I think there is an implication in it.  (Laughter.)  I will vote for 37~ or 36~ either, just as it is convenient: but it is idle to shut our eyes to the fact that here is an attempt in this
bill-I will not say it is the intention of the mover-to pledge this Senate and
Congress to the imaginary line of 36~ 30', because there are some historical
recollections connected with it in regard to this controversy about slavery. I
will content myself with saying that I never will, by vote or speech, admit or
submit to anything that may bind the action of our legislation here to make
the parallel of 36~ 30' the boundary line between slave and free territory. And
when I say that, I explain the reason why I go againast the amendment."
These remarks of Mr. Hale were not made on a proposition to extend the Missouri Compromise hine to the Pacific, but on a proposition
to fix 36~ 30' as the southern boundary line of Utah, for local reasons.  He was against it because there might be, as hlie said, an implication growing out of historical recollections in favor of the imaginary
line between slavery and freedom. Does that look as if his object
was to get an implication in favor of preserving sacred this line, in
regard to which gentlemen now say there was a solemn compact?
That proposition may illustrate what I wish to say in this connection
upon a point which has been mnade by the opponents of this bill, as
to the effect of an amendment inserted on the motion of the senator
from Virginia (Mr. MAason), into the Texas Boundary Bill. The opponents of this measure rely upon that amendment to show that the
Texas compact was preserved by the acts of 1850. I have already
shown, in my former speech, that the object of the amendment was
to guaranty to the State of Texas, with her circumscribed bcundlaries,
the same number of States which she would have had urnder her
larger boundaries, and with the same right to come in with or without slavery, as they please.
We have been told over and over again that there was no such
thing intimated in debate as that the country cut off from Texas was
to be relieved from the stiplulation of that compromise. This has
been asserted boldly and unconditionally, as if there could be no
doubt about it. The senator from Georgia (Mr. Toombs), in his
speech, showed that, in his address to his constituents of that State,
he had proclaimed to the world that the object was to establish a
principle which would allow the people to decide the question of
slavery for themselves, north as well as south of 36~ 30'. The line
of 36~ 30' was voted down as the boundary of Utah, so that there
should not be even an implication in favor of an imaginary line to
divide freedom and slavery. Subsequently, when the Texas Bounlary Bill was under consideration, on the next day after the amendment of the senator from Virginia had been adopted, the record
says:     23
131 
132    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
" MR. SEBASTIAN moved to add to the second article the following:
"' On the condition that the territory hereby ceded may be, at the proper
time, formed into a Sta'te. and admitted into the Union, with  a con;titution
with or without the prohibition of slavery therein, as the people of the said
Territory may at the time determine.'"
Then the senator from Arkansas did propose that the territory cut
off should be relieved from that restriction in express terms, and
allowed to come in according to the principles of this bill.  What
was done? The debate continued:
"MR.  FOOTE.-Will my friend allow me to appeal to him  to move this
amendment when the Territorial Bill for New Mexico shall be up for consideration? It will certainly be a part of that bill, and I shall then vote for it with
pleasure. Now it will only embarrass our action."
Let it be remarked, that no one denied the propriety of the provision.  All seemed to acquiesce in the principle; but it was thought
better to insert it in the Territorial bills, as we are now doing, instead
of adding it to the Texas Boundary Bill. The debate proceeded:
" MR. SEBASTIAN.-My only object in offering the amendment is to secure
the assertion of this principle beyond a doubt. The principle was acquiesced
in without difficulty in regard to the Territorial government established for
Utah, a part of this acquired territory, and it is proper, inm mly opillion, that it
should be incorporated in this bill.
"MESSRS. CASS, FooTE, and others.-Oh, withdraw it.
"MIR. SEBASTIAN.-I think this is the proper place for it.  It is uncertain
whether it will be incorporated in the other bill referred to, and the bill itself
may not pass."
lt will be seen that the debate goes upon tle supposition that the
effect was to release tlJe country n(rtll of 86~ 30' lroln the obligation
of tlhe prohibition; and the only question, was whether the declartion that it should be received into the Union l " with or without
slavery," should be inserted in the Texas Bili or the Territorial Bill.
The debate was continued, and I will read one or two other passages:
" MR. FOOTE.-I wish to state to the senator a fact of which, I think, he is
not observant at this moment; and that is, that the senator from Virginia has
introduced an amendment, which is now a part of the bill, which recognizes
the Texas compact of annexation in every respect.
"MR. SEBASTIAN.-I was aware of the effect of the amendment of the senator from Virginia.  It is in regard to the number of States to be formed out
of Texas. and is referred to only in general terms."
Thus it will be seen that the senator fiom Arkansas then explained
the amendment of the -enator from Virginia, which  had been
adopted, in precisely the saiiie way in which I explained il in my
opening speech. The senator from Arkansas continued:
" If this amendment be the same as that offered by the senator from Vi
,  ginia, there can certainly be no harm in reaffirming it in this bill, to which I
think it properly belongs." 
STEPHE N A. DOUG Li 8.
Thus it will be seen that nobody disputed that the restriction was
to, be removed; and the only question was, as to the bill ini which
thlat declaration would be put. It seems, from the record, that I
took part in the debate, and said:
"MR. DOUraLAs.-This boundary as now fixed, would leave New Mexico
bounded on the east by the 103 of longitude up to 36~ 30', and then east to
100~; and it leaves a narrow neck of land between 36~ 30' and the old boundury of Texas, that would not naturally and properly go to New Mexico when:t
should become a State. This amendment would compel us to include it in
New Mexico, or to form it into another State. When the principle shall come
up in the bill for the organization of a Territorial government for New Mexico,
no doubt the same vote which inserted it inl the Omnibus Bill, and the Utah
Bill, will insert it there.
"Several senators.-No doubt of it."
Upon that debate the amendment of the senator firom Arkansas
was voted down, because it was avowed and distinctly understood
that the amendment of the senator from Virginia, taken in connection
with thle remainder of the bill, did release the country ceded by
Texas north of 36~ 30' from the restriction; and it was agreed that
if we did not put it into the Texas Boundary Bill it should go into
the Territorial Bill. I stated, as a reason why it should not go into
the Texas Boundary Bill, that if it did it would be a compact, and
would compel us to put the whole ceded country into one State,
when it might be more convenient and natural to make a different
boundary.  I pledged myself then that it should be put into the
Territorial Bill; and when we considered the Territorial bill for
New Mexico, we put in thle same clause, so far as the country ceded
by Texas was embraced within that Territory, and it passed in that
shape. When it went into the house, they united the two bills
together, and thus this clause passed in the same bill, as the senator
from Arkansas desired.
Now, sir, have I not shown conclusively that it was the understanding in that debate that the effect was to release the country
north of 36~ 80', which formerly belonged to Texas, from the operation of that restriction, and to provide that it should come into the
Union with or without slavery, as its people should see proper?
That being the case; I ask the senator from Ohio (Mr. Chase) if
he ought not to have been cautious when he charged over and over
again that there was not a word or a syllable uttered in debate to
that effect t Should he not have been cautious when he said that
it was a mere after-thought on my part? Should he not have been
cautious when he said that I never even dreamed of it up to the 4th
of January of this year? Whereas the record shows that I made a
speech to that effect during the pendency of the bills of 1850. The
same statement was repeated by nearly every senator who followed
him in debate in opposition to this bill; and it is now being circulated
over the country, published in every abolition paper, and read on
every stump by every abolition orator, in order to get up a prejudic
I 33 
134    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
against me and the measure I have introduced.  Those gentlemen
should not have dared to utter the statement without knowing
whether it was correct or not. These records are troublesome things
sometimes. It is not proper for a man to charge another with a
mere after-thought because he did not know that he had advocated
the same principles before. Because he did not know itlle should
not take it for granted that nobody else did.  Let me tell the senators
that it is a very unsafe rule for them to rely upon. They ought to
have had sufficient respect for a brother senator to have believed,
when he came forward with an important proposition, that hlie had
investigated it. They ought to have had sufficient respect for a
committee of this body to have assumed that they meant what they
said.
When I see such a system of misinterpretation and misrepresentation of views, of laws, of records, of debates, all tending to mislead
the public, to excite prejudice, and to propagate erro'or, have I not a
right to expose it in very plain terms, without being arraigned for
violating the courtesies of thle Senate. 
Mr. President, frequent reference has been made in debate to the
admission of Arkansas as a sl.-veholding State, as furnishing evidence
that the abolitionists and freesoilers, who have recently become so
much enamored with  the Missouri Compromise, have always been
faithful to its stipulations and implications. I will show that the
reference is unfortunate for them.  When  Arkansas  applied foi
admission in 1836, objection was made in consequence of the provisions of her constitution in respect to slavery. When tile abolitionists and fieesoilers of that day were arraigned for making that
objection, upon the ground that Arkansas was south of 36~ 30', they
replied that the act of 1820 was never a compromise, much less a
compact, imposing any obligation upon the successors of those who
passed the act to pay any more respect to its lirovisions than to any
other enactment of ordinary legislation. I have the debates before
me, but will occupy the attention of the Senate only to read one or
two paragraphs.  Mr. Hand of New York, in opposition to the
admission of Arkansas as a slaveholding State, said:
" I am aware, it will be, as it has already been contended, that by the
Misscurl Compromise, as it has been preposterously termed, Congress has
parted with its right to prohibit the introduction of slavery into the territory
south of 36~ 30' north latitude."
He acknowledged that by the Missouri Compromise, as he said it
was preposterously termed, the North was estopl)ped fro)m denying
the right to hold slaves south of that line; but, hlie added:
" There are, to my mind, insuperable objections to the soundness of that
proposition."
Here they are:
"In the first place, there was no compromise or compact whereby Congress
lurrendered any power, or yielded any jurisdiction; and, in the second plae, 
SFEPHEN A. D: UG1AS.
if it had done so, it was a mere legislative act, that could not bind their suc.
cessors; it would be subject to a repeal at the will of any succeeding Congress."
I give these passages as specimens of the various speeches made in
opposition to the admission of Arkansas by the same class of politicians who now oppose the Nebraska Bill upon the ground that it
violates a solemn compact.  So much for the speeches.  Now for
the vote. The journal which I hold in my hand, shows that fortynine northern votes were recorded against the admission of Arkansas.
Yet, sirs, in utter disregard-and charity leads me to hope, in profound ignorance-of all these facts, gentlemen are boasting that the
North always observed the contract, never denied its validity, never
wished to violate it; and they have even referred'to the cases of
the admission of Missouri and Arkansas as instances of their good
faith.
Now, is it possible that gentlemen could suppose these things could
be said and distributed in their speeches without exposure? Did
they presume that, inasmuch as their lives were devoted to slavery
agitation, whatever they did not know about the history of that
question did not exist? I am willing to believe, I hope it may be
the fact, that they were profoundly ignorant of all these records, all
these debates, all these facts, which overthrow every position they
have assumed. I wish the senator from Maine (Mr. Fegssenden), who
delivered his maiden speech here to-night, and who made many
sly stabs at me, had informed himself upon the subject before he repeated all these groundless assertions. -I can excuse him for the
reason that he has been here but a few days, and havng enlisted
under the banner of the abolition confederates, was unwise and simple enough to believe that what they had published could be relied
upon as stubborn facts.  He may be an innocent victim.  I hope he
can have the excuse of not having investigated the subject. I am
willing to excuse him on the ground that he did not know what he
was talking about, and it is the only excuse which I can make for
him. I will say, however, that I do not think he was required by
his loyalty to the abolitionists to repeat every disreputable insinuation which they made. Why did he throw into his speech that foul
innuendo about "a northern man with southern principles," and then
quote the senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner) as his authority?
Ay, sir, I say that foul insinuation.  Did not the senator from Massachusetts, who first dragged it into this debate, wish to have the
public understand that I was known as a northern man with southern
principles? Was not that the allusion? If it was, he availed himself
of a cant phrase in the public mind, in violation of the truth of history. I know of but one man in this country who ever made it a
boast that he was "a northern man with southern principles," and
he (turning to Mr. Sumner) was your candidate for the Presidency in
1848.  (Applause in the galleries.).
THE PREISIDING OFFICER (MR. MASON).-Order, order.
MR. DOUGLAS.-If his sarcasm was intended for Martin Van Bure,
13.1 
136    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES  Ot
it involves a faulily quarrel, with which I have no disposition to
interfere. I will only add that I have been able to discover nothing
in the present position or recent history of that distinguished statesman, which would lead mn  to covet the 8obriquet by which he is
known-" a northern man with southern principles."
Mr. President, the senators from Ohio and Massachusetts (Mr. Chase
and Mr. Sumner), have taken the liberty to impeach my motives in
bringing forward this measure. I desire to know by what right they
arraign me, or by what authority they impute to me other and dif.
ferent motives than those which I have assigned. I have shown from
the record that I advocated and voted for the same principles and
provisions in the compromise acts of 1850, which are embraced in
this bill. I have proven that I put the same construction upon those
measures immediately after their adoption that is given in the report
which I submitted this session from the Committee on Territories.
I have shown the legislature of Illinois at its first session, after those
measures were enacted, passed resolutions approving them, and declaring that the same great principles of self-government should be
incorporated into all Territorial organizations. Yet, sir, in the face of
these facts, these senators have the hardihood to declare that this was
all an "afterthought" on my part, conceived for the first time during the present session; and that the measure is offered as a bid for
Presidential votes! Are they incapable of conceiving that an honest
man can do a right thing from worthy motives? I must be permitted
to tell those senators that their experience in seeking political preferment does not furnish a safe rule by which to judge the character and
principles of other senators!
I must be permitted to tell the senator from Ohio that I did not
obtain my seat in this body, either by a corrupt bargain or a dishonorable coalition! I must be permitted to remind the senator
from Massachusetts that I did not enter into any combinations or
arrangements by which my character, my principles, and my honor,
were set up at public auction or private sale in order to procure a
seat in the Senate of the United States!  I did not come into the
Senate by any such means.
MR. WELLRR.-But there are some men whom I know that did.
MR. CHASR (to Mr. Weller.)  Do you say that I came here by a
bargain? Whoever says that I came here by a corrupt bargain states
what is false.
MR. DOUGLAS.-It will not do for the senator from Ohio to return
offensive expressions after what I have said and proven. - Nor can
I permit him to change the issue, and thereby divert public attention
from the enormity of his offence, in charging me with unworthy
motives; while performing a high public duty, in obedience to the
expressed wish and known principles of my State. I choose to
maintain my own position, and leave the public to ascertain, if they
do not understand how and by what means he was elected to tHi
Sluate. 
STEPHEN Al DOUGLAS.
MR. CHASE.-If the senator will allow me, I will say, in reply to
the remarks which the senator has just made, that I did not under
stand him as calling upon me for any explanation of the statement
which he said was made in regard to a Presidential bid. The exact
statement in the address was this-it was a question addressed to the
people: "Would they allow their dearest rights to be made the
hazards of a Presidential game "  That was the exact expression.
Now, sir, it is well known that all these great measures in the country
are influenced, more or less, by reference to the great public canvasses
which are going on from time to time. I certainly did not intend
to impute to the senator from. Illinois-and I desire always to do
justice-in that any improper motive. I do not think it is an
unworthy ambition to desire to be a President of the United States.
I do not think that the bringing forward of a measure with reference to that object would be an improper thing, if the measure be
proper in itself.  I differ from the senator in my judgment of the
measure. I do not think the measure is a right one. In that I
express the judgment which I honestly entertain. I do not condemn
his judgment, 1 do not make, and I do not desire to make, any personal imputations upon him in reference to a great public question.
MR. DOUGLAS.-I wish to examine the explanation of the senator
from Ohio, and see whether I ought to accept it as satisfactory. lHe
has quoted the language of the address. It is undeniable that that
language clearly imputed to me the design of bringing forward this
bill with a view of securing my own-election to the Presidency.
Then, by way of excusing himself for imputing to me such a purpose, the senator says that he does not consider it  "an unworthy
ambition;" and hence he says that, in making the charge, he does
not impugn my motives. I must remind him that, in addition to
that insinuations he only said, in the same address, that my bill was a
"criminal betrayal of precious rights;" he only said it was "an
atrocious plot against freedom and humanity;" he only said that it
was "mcditated bad faith;" he only spoke significantly of "servile
demagogues;" he only called upon the preachers of the Gospel and
the people at their public meetings to denounce and resist such a
monstrous iniquity. In saying all this, and much of the same sort,
he now assures me in the presence of the Senate, that he did not
mean the charge to imply an "unworthy ambition;" that it was not
intended as a "personal imputation" upon my motives or character;
and that he meant "no personal disrepect" to me as the author of
the measure. In reply, I will content myself with the remark, that
there is a very wide difference of opinion between the senator from
Ohio and myself in respect to the meaning of words, and especially
in regard to the line of conduct which, in a public man, does not
constitute an unworthy ambition.
MR. SUMNER.-Will the senator from Illinois yield the floor to me
for a moment?
M[R. DOUGLAs.-AS I presume it is on the same point, I Will hear
the testimony.
137 
138    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
MR. SUER.-Mr. President, I shrink always instinctively from
any effort to repel a personal assault. - I do not recognize the juris
diction of this body to try my election to the Senate; but I do state,
in reply to the senator from Illinois, that if he means to suggest that
I came into the body by any waiver of principles; by any abandonment of my principles of any kind; by any effort or activity of my
own, ip any degree, he states that which cannot be sustained by the
facts. I never sought, in any way, the office which I now hold;
nor was I a party, in any way, directly or indirectly, to those efforts
which placed me here.
MR. DOUGLAS.-Sir, the senator from Massachusetts comes up with
a very bold front, and denies the right of any man to put him on
defence for the manner of his election. He says it is contrary to his
principles to engage in personal assaults. If he expects to avail himself of tile benefit of such a plea, he should act in accordance with
his professed principles, and refrain from assaulting the character
and impugning the motives of better men than himself.  Everybody
knows that he came here by a coalition or combination between
political parties holding opposite and hostile opinions. But it is not
may purpose to go into the morality of the matters involved in his
election. The public know the history of that notorious coalition,
and have formed its judgment upon it. It will not do for the senator
to say that he was not a party to it, for he thereby betrays a consciousnaess of the immorality of the transaction, without acquitting
himself of the responsibilities which justly attach to him. As well
might the receiver of stolen goods deny any responsibility for the
larceny, while luxuriating in the proceeds of the crime, as the senator to avoid the consequences resulting from the mode of his election,
while he clings to the office. I must be permitted to remind him of
what he certainly can never forget, that when he arrived here to
take his seat for the first time, so firmly were senators imnpressed
with the conviction that he had been elected by dishonorable and
corrupt means, there were very few who, for a long time, could
deem it consistent with personal honor to hold private intercourse
with him.  So general was that impression, that for a long time he
was avoided and shunned as a person unworthy of the association
of gentlemen. Gradually, howe rer, these injurious impressions were
worn away by his bland manners and amiable deportment; and I
regret that the senator should now, by a violation of all the rules of
courtesy and propriety, compel me to refresh his mind upon these unwe]come reminiscences.
MR. CHAsE.-If the senator refers to me, he is stating a fact of
which I have no knowledge at all.  I came here 
.MB. DOUGLAS.-I was not speaking of the senator from Ohio, but
of his confederate in slander, the senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
sumner). I have a word now to say to the other senator from Ohio
(Mr. Wade). On the day when 1 exposed this abolition address, so
full of slanders and calumnies, he arose and stated that, although his
mne was signed to it, he had never read it; and so willing was he 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
to indorse an abolition document, that he signed it in blank, without knowing what it contained.
The senator from New York (Mr. Seward), when I was about to
call him to account for this slanderous production, promptly denied
that he ever signed the document.  Now, I say, it has been circulated with his name attached to it; then I want to know of the
senators who sent out the document, who forged the name of the
senator from New York?
MR. CHASE.-I am glad that the senator has asked that question.
I have only to say in reference to that matter, that I have not the
slightest knowledge in regard to the manner in which various names
were appended to that dpcument. It was prepared to be signed, and
was signed, by the gentlemen here who are known as Independent
Democrats, and how any other names came to be added to it is more
than I can tell.
MR. DOUGLAS.-It is not a satisfactory answer, for those who confess to the preparation and publication of a document filled with
insult and calumny, with forged names attached to it for the purpose
of imparting to it respectability, to interpose a technical denial that
they committed the crime. Somebody did forge other people's
names to that document.  The senators from Ohio and MassachIusetts
(Mr. Chase and Mr. Sumner), plead guilty to the authorship and publication; upon them rests the responsibility of showing who comnmitted the forgery.
Mr. President, I have done with these personal matters. I regret
the necessity which compelled me to devote so much time to them.
All I have done and said has been in the way of self-defence, as the
Senate can bear me witness.
Mr. President, I have also occupied a good deal of time in exposing
the cant of these gentlemen about the sanctity of the Missouri Compromise, and the dishonor attached to the violation of plighted faith.
I have exposed these matters in order to show that the object of
these men is to withdraw from public attention the real principle
involved in the bill. They well know that the abrogation of the
Missouri Compromise is the incident and not the principal of the bill.
They well understand that the report of the committee and the bill
propose to establish the principle in all Territorial organizations, that
the question of slavery shall be referred to the people to regulate for
themselves, and that such legislation should be had as was necessary
to remove all legal obstructions to the free exercise of this right by
the people.
The eighth section of the Missouri Act standing in the way of this
great principle must be rendered inoperative and voit whether expressly repealed or not, in order to give the people the power of regulating their own domestic institutions in their own way, subject only
to the Constitution.
Now, sir, if these gentlemen have entire confidence in the correcthess of their own position, why do they not meet the iss'ie boldly 
140    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
and fairly, and controvert the soundness of this great princip e of
popular sovereignty in obedience to the Constitution? They know
full well that this was the principle upon which the colonies separated from the crown of Great Britain, the principle upon which the
battles of the Revolution were fought, and the principle upon which
our republican system was founded. They cannot be ignorant of the
fact that the Revolution grew out of the assertion of the right on the
part of the imperial government to interfere with the internal affairs
and domestic concerns of the colonies.  In this connection I will
invite attention to a few extracts hfrn the instructions of the different colonies to their delegates in the Continental Qongress, with a
view of forming such a union as would enable them to make successful resistance to the efforts of the crown to destroy the fundamental
principle of all free government by interfering with the domestic
affairs of the colonies.
I will begin with Pennsylvania, whose devotion to the principles
of human liberty, and the obligations of the Constitution, has
acquired for her the proud title of the Key-stone in the arch of
republican States. In her instructions is contained the following
reservation:                                         -         -
"Reserving to the people of this colony the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police of the same."
And, in a subsequent instruction, in reference to suppressing the
British authority in the colonies, Pennsylvania uses the following
emphatic language:
"Unanimously declare our willingness to concur in a vote of the Congress
declaring the United Colonies free and independent States, provided the formfng the government aDd the regulation of the internal police of this colony be
always reserved to the people of the said colony."
Connecticut, in authorizing her delegates to vote for the Declaration of Independence, attached to it the following condition:
"Saving that the administration of government, and the power of forming
governments for, and the regulation of the internal concerns and police or
each colony, ought to be left and remain to the respective colonial legislatures."
New HIampshire annexed this proviso to her instructions to her
ielegates to vote for independence:
"Provided the regulation of our internal police be under the direction of our
own assembly."
New Jersey imposed the following condition:
" Always observing that, whatever plan of confederacy you enter into, the
r'egulating the internal police of this province is to be reserved to the colonial
'jilature." 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
Maryland gave her consent to the Declaration of Independence
apon the condition contained in this proviso:
" And that said colony will hold itself bound bv the resolutions of a majority
of the United Colonies in the premises, provided the sole and exclusive right
of regulating the internal government and police of that colony be reserved to
thie people thereof."
Virginia annexed the following condition to her instructions to
ote for the Declaration of Illdependence:
"Provided that the power of forming government for, and the regulations
of the internal concerns of the colony, be left to respective colonial legislalures."
I will not weary the Senate in multiplying evidence upon this
point. It is apparent that the Declaration of Independence lhad its
origin in the violation of that great fundamental principle which
secured to the people of the colonies the right to regulate their own
domestic affairs in their own way: and that the Revolution resulted
in the triumph of that principle, and the recognition of the right asserted by it. Abolitionism proposes to destroy the right, anrid extinguish the principle for which our forefathers waged a seven years'
bloody war, and upon which our whole system of free government
is founded.  They not only deny the Application of this principle to
the Territories, but insist upon fastening the prohibition upon all the
States to be formed out of those Territories.  Tlherefore, the doctrine
of the abolitionists-thie doctrine of the opponents of the Nebraska
and Kansas Bill, and of -the advocates of the Missouri restrictiondemand Congressional interference with slavery, not only in the Territories, but in all the new States to be formed therefrom. It is the
same doctrine when applied to the Territories and new States of this
Union, which the British government attempted to enforce by the
sword upon the American colonies.  It is this fundamental  principle
of self-government which constitutes the distinguishing feature of
the Nebraska Bill. The opponents of the principle are consistent in
opposing the bill. I do not blame them for their opposition. I-1 only
ask them to meet the issue fairly and openly, by acknowledging that
they are opposed to the principle which it is the object of the bill to
carry into operation.   It seems that there is no power on earth, nio
intellectnal power, no mechanical power that can bring them to a
fair discussion of the true issue.  If they hope to delude the people,
and escape detection for any considerable length of time under the
catch-word "' Missouri Compromise," and "faith of compacts," they
will find that the pecple of this country have more penetration and
intelligence than they have given them credit for.
Mr. President, there is an important fact connected with this slavery resolution, which should never be lost sight of. It has always
arisen from one and the same cause.  Whenever that cause has been
141 
142    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
removed, the agitation has ceased; and whenever the cause has been
renewed, the agitation has sprung into existence. That cause is, and
ever has been, the attempt on the part of Congress to interfere with
the question of slavery in the Territories and new States formed
therefrom. Is it not wise, then, to confine our action within the
sphere of our legitimate duties, and leave this vexed question so take
care of itself in each State and Territory, according to the wishes of
the people thereof, in conformity to the forms and in subjection to
the provisions of the Constitution I
The opponents of the bill tell us that agitation is no part of their
policy, that their great desire is peace and harmony  and they corn plain bitterly that I should have disturbed the repose of the country
by the introduction of this measure.  Let me ask these professed
friends of peace and avowed enemies of agitation,  how the issue
could have been avoided? They tell me that I should have let the
question alone-that is, that I should have left Nebraska unorganized,
the people unprotected, and the Indian barrier in existence, until the
swelling tide of emigration should burst through, and accomplish by
violence what it is the part of wisdom and statesmanship to direct
and regulate by law.  How long could you have postponed action
with safety? Ilow long could you maintain that Indian barrier, and
restrain the onward mnarch of civilization.  Christianity, and free
government by a barbarian wall? Do you suppose that you could
keep that vast country a howling wilderness in all time to come,
roamed over by hostile savages, cutting off all safe commiunicationa
between our Atlantic and Pacific possessions?  I tell you that the
time for action has comne, and cannot be postponed.  It is a case in
which the "let-alone" policy would precipitate a crisis which must
inevitably result in violence, anarchly, and strife.
You cannot fix bounds to the onward march of this great and
growing country. You cannot fetter the limbs of the young giant.
He will burst all your chains. He will expand, and grow, and increase, and extend civilization, Christiapity, and liberal principles.
Then, sir, if you cannot check the growth of the country in that
direction, is it not the part of wisdom to look the danger in the face,
and provide for an event which you cannot avoid? I tell you, sir,
you must provide for continuous lines of settlement from the Mississippi Valley to the Pacific Ocean. And in making this provision,
you must decide upon what principles the Territories shlall be or.
ganized; in other words, whether the people shall be allowed to
regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, according to
the provisions of this bill, or whether the opposite doctrine of Congressional interference is to prevail. Postpone it, if you will; but
whenever you do act, this question must be met and decided.
The Missouri Compromise was interference; the Compromise of
1850 was non-interference, leaving the people to exercise their rights
under the Constitution. The Committee on Territories were comelled to act on this subject.  I, as their chairman, was bound to 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
meet tne question. I chose to take the responsibility, regardless of
consequence personal to myself. I should have done the same thing
last year, if there had been time: but we know, considering the late
period at which the bill then reached us from the House, that there
was not sufficient time to consider the question fully, and to prepare
a report upon the subject. I was therefore persuaded by friends to
allow the bill to be reported to the Senate, in order that such action
might be taken as should be deemed wise and proper.
The bill was never taken up for action, the last night of the session having been exhausted in-debate on the motion to take up the
bill. This session, the measure was introduced by my friend from
Iowa (Mr. Dodge) and referred to the Territorial Committee during
the first week of the session. We have abundance of time to consider the subject; it was a matter of pressing necessity, and there
was no excuse for not meeting it directly and fairly. We were compelled to take our position upon the doctrine either of intervention
or non-intervention. We chose the latter, for two reasons; first,
because we believed that the principle was right; and, second, because it was the principle adopted in 1850, to which the two great
political parties of the country were solemnly pledged.
There is another reason why I desire to see this principle recognized as a rule of action in all time to come.  It will have the effect
to destroy all sectional parties and sectional agitations. If, in the
language of the report of the committee, you withdraw the slavery
question from the halls of Congress and the political arena, and commit it to the arbitrament of those who are immediately interested in
and alone responsible for its consequences, there is nothing left out
of which sectional parties can be organized. It never was done. ann
never can be done on the bank, tariff, distribution, or any other par
ty issue which has existed, or may exist, after this slavery question
is withdrawn from politics. On every other political question these
have always supporters and opponents in every portion of the Union
-in each State, county, village, and neighborhood-residing togeth er ir harmony and good-fellowship, and combating each other's opin ions and correcting each other's errors in a spirit of kindness and
friendship.   These differences of opinion between neighbors and
friends, and the discussions that grow out of them, and the sympa thy which each feels with the advocates of his own opinions in eve ry other portion of this wide-spread republic, adds an overwhelming
and irresistible moral weight to the strength of the confederacy.
Affection for the Union can never be alienated or diminished b)
any other party issues than those which are joined upon sectional
or geographical lines. - When the people of the North shall all be
rallied under one banner, and the whole South marshalled under an other banner, and each section excited to frenzy and madness by
hostility to the institutions of the other, then the patriot may well
tremble for the perpetuity of the Union. Withdraw the slavery
question from the political arena, and remove it to the States and
145 
144   THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
Territories, each to decide for itself, such a catastrophe (can never
happen. Then you will never be able to tell, by any senator's vote
for or against any measure, fr6m what State or section of the Union
l:.e comes.
Why, then, can we not withdraw this vexed question from poli  tics? Why can we not adopt the P-rinciple of this bill as a rule of
action in all new Territorial organizations?  Why can we not deprive
these agitators of their vocation, and render it impossible for sena  tors to come here upon bargains on the slavery question? I believe
that the peace, the harmony, and perpetuity of the Union require us
to go back to the doctrines of the Revolution, to the principles of
the Constitution-the Compromise of 1850, and leave the people,
under the Constitution, to do as they may see proper in respect to
their own internal affairs.
Mr. President, I have not brought this question forward as a nor  thern man or as a southern mnan. I am unwilling to recognize such
divisions and distinctions. I have brought it forward as an Ameri can senator, representing a State which is true to this principle, and
which has approved of my action in respect to the Nebraska Bill.
[ have brought it forward not as an act of justice to the South more
tlian to the North. I have presented it especially as an acf of justice
to the people of those Territories, and of the States to be formed
therefrom, now and in all time to come.
I have nothing to say about northern rights or southern rights. I
know of no such divisions or distinctions under the Constitution.
The bill does equal and exact justice to the whole Union, and every
part of it; it violates the rights of no State or Territory, but places
each on a perfect equality, and leaves the people thereof to the free
enjoyment of all their rights under the Constitution.   -
Now, sir, I wish to say to our southern friends, that if they desire to
see this great principle carried out, n )w is their time to rally around
it, to cherish it, preserve it, make it the rule cf action in all future
time. If they fail to do it now, and thereby allow the doctrine of
inaterference to prevail, upon their heads the consequence of that in terference must rest.  To our northern friends, on the other hand, I
desire to say, that from this day henceforward, they must rebuke the
slander which has been uttered against the Soiith, that they desire to
legislate slavery into the Territories. The South has vindicated her
sincerity, her honor on that point, by bringing forward a provision,
negativing, in express terms, any such effect as the result of this bill.
I am rejoiced to know that, while the propoition to abrogate the
eighth section of the Missouri Act comes from a free State, the proposition to negative the conclusion that slavery is thereby introduced
comes from a slaveholding State.  Thus, both  ides furnish conclusive evidence that they go for the principle, and the principle only,
and desire to take no advantage of any possible miseonstrm tion.
Mr. President, I feel that I owe an apology to the Senate for l,av   occupied their attention so long, and a still grater apolog  for 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
having discussed the question in such an incoherent and desultory
nmanner. But I could not forbear to claim the right of closing this
debate. I thought gentlemen would recognize its propriety when
they saw the manner in which I was assailed and misrepresented in
the course of this discussion, and especially by assaults still more
disreputable, in some portions of the country. These assaults have
had no other effect upon me than to give me courage and energy for
a still more resolute discharge of duty.  I say frankly that, in my
opinion, this measure will be as popular at the North as at the South
when its provisions and principles shall have been fully developed
and become well understood. The people at the North are attached
to the principles of self-government; and you cannot convince them
that that is self-government which deprives a people of the right of
legislating for themselves, and compels them to receive laws which
are forced upon them by a legislature in which they are not repre.
sented. We are willing to stand upon this great principle of selfgovernment everywhere; and it is to us a proud reflection that, in
this whole discussion, no friend of the bill has urged an argument in
its favor which could not be used with the same propriety in a free
State as in a slave State, and vice versa. But no enemy of the bill
has used an argument which would bear repetition one mile across
Mason and Dixon's line. Our opponents have dealt entirely in sectional appeals. The friends of the bill have discussed a great principle of universal application, which can be sustained by the same
reasons, and the same arguments, in every time and in every corner
of the Union.
145 - 
146    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES Ot
ON  BRITISH AGGRESSION.
On the 7th of June, 1858, the subject of British Aggreeon becing under consideration, Mr. Douglas said:
I agree, Mr. President, with most that has been said by my friend
from Georgia (Mr. Toombs), and especially that we ought to determine what we are to do in reference to the outrages upon our flag in
the Gulf of Mexico and the West Indies before we decide the amount
of money we shall vote for war purposes. If we are going to content ourselves with siLnple resolutions that we will not sutbmit to that
which we have resolved for half a century should never be repeated,
I see no use in additional appropriations for navy or for army; if we
are going to be contented with loud-sounding speeches, with defiance
to tile British lion, with resolutions of the Senate alone, not concurred in bv the other house, conferring no power on the Executive,
merely capital for the country, giving no power to the Executive to
avenge insults or prevent their repetition, what is the use of voting
money? I findd that patriotic gentlemen are ready to talk loud, resolve strong; but are they willing to appropriate the mnoney-are
they willing to confer on the Executive power to repel these insults,
and to avenge them whenever they may be perpetrated? Lot us
know whether we are to submit and protest., or whether we are to
authorize the President to resist and to prevent the repetition of
these offences.  If senators are prepared to vote for a law reviving
the act of 1839, putting the army, the navy, volunteers, and money
at the disposal of the President to prevent thle repetition of these
acts, and to punish them if repeated, then I am ready to give the
ships and the money; but I desire to know whether we are to subs
mit to these insults with a simple protest, or whether we are to re.
pel them.
Gentlernmen ask us to vote ships and money, and they talk to us
about the necessity of a ship in China, and about outrages in Tanmpico, and disturbances in South America, and Inidian difficulties in
Puget Sound.' Every enemy that can be found on the face of the
earth is defied, except the one that defies us. Bring in a proposition here to invest the President with power to repel British aggression on American ships, and what is the response?  High-sounding
resolutions, declaring in effect, if not in terms, that whereas Great
Britain has perpetrated outrages on our flag and our shipping, which
are intolerable and insufferable, and must not be repeated; therefore,
if ehe does so again, we will whip Mexico, or we will pounce down
upon Nicaragua, or we will get np a fight with Costa Rica, or we
will chastise New Granada, or we will punish the Chinese, or we 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
will repel the Indians from Puget Sound (laughter); but not a word
about Great Britain! What I desire to know, is whether we are to
meet this issue with Great Britain? I am told we shall do it when
we are prepared. Sir, when will you be prepared to repel an insult,
unless when it is given?
England has her ships of war, of various sizes, searching our ves
sels, firing across their bows, firing into their rigging, subject
ing them to search, not only iR the Gulf of Mexico, but in the Carib
bean sea and upon the Atlantic. It is not confined to one captain,
or one vessel, or one locality, but the outrages are committed by
various ships, by the Styx, on the coast of Cuba; by the Forward,
five hundred miles east of there; by the Buzzard, a thousand miles
from Cuba. Every arrival at our ports brings us information of the
repetition of these offences, clearly demonstrating the fact that they
are not accidental. They are not confined to one locality. They are
not the acts of one ship or of one officer. They are the result of
orders from Great Britain to execute this system of outrages on the
American flag and American commerce. Are we to submit to it?
If so, let us not say another word about it, pass no rescutions, make
no speeches, vote no extra appropriations that we would not vote if
these things had not occurred. If, on the contrary, we are not going to
submit to them, why not act as we did on the northeastern boundary
question in 1839? When the news arrived here on the 2d of March,
1839, that an American citizen had been taken prisoner on the disputed boundary of Maine, showing a disposition on the part'of Great
Britain to insist on her claim to the exclusive possession of that
country, instantly the Senate, by a unanimous vote, passed a bill
authorizing the President to repel any attempt on the part of Great
Britain to enforce that claim, and, for that purpose, putting at his
disposal the army, the navy, the militia, fifty thousand volunteers,
and ten millions of money, to enable him to execute the will of the
nation in that respect.
Now, sir, why not revive that act, striking out the disputed boundary and inserting" her claims to the right of visitation and search,"
and then every provision of that bill would be applicable to the present case. My friend from Missouri (Mr. Green) calls my attention
to the vote of the House of Representatives on that occasion.  It
stood 197 in the affirmative, and 6 in the negative. The vote in the
Senate was forty-one in the affirmative, none in the negative. Your
Clays, your Calhouns, your Websters, the great men of former times,
were here then; men differing in politics in times of high party
strife, at a period when Mr. Van Buren was President, and Clay,
Webster, and Calhoun led the opposition. Still, the moment this
outrage was perpetrated by Great Britain upon our rights, all party
dissensions were hushed; the opposition and the administration
stood as one man when the honor of the nation was assaulted. They
did not hesitate to confer upon Mr. Van Buren the power to resist
the outrages committed by Great Britain, in case they shoi-ld be
persevered in.                  24
147 
148    Tf E LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
Why not row revive the same law which was then pass(d by a
unanimous rote in the Senate, and with only six dissenting voices in
the other house, and confer upon President Buchanan the same
power and authority which was then conferred upon President Van
Buren on the motion of Mr. Senator Buchanan? Do that, and then
I am prepared to vote the ships, the money, the men, anything,
everything, necessary to indicate our firm resolve. Yes, sir, I will
go further, I will vote the ships and the money even now, trusting
that Congress, before it adjourns, will arm the President with the
necessary power and authority to prevent a repetition of these aggres sions. I am, however, extremely unwilling to bury up-the outrages of
Great Britain under all the talk and noise that is made about the injulries
perpetrated by the South American republics. I know that in South
America outrages have been perpetrated on our commerce, on our
citizens and their property, which ought to have been punished on
the spot. I know they are continuing, and will continue, from day
to day, and year to year, until you clothe the Executive with the
authority to punish them as promptly as the British government
punish similar outrages on their commerce and their rights; but
these things have been going on in South America for years. They
are weak, feeble, unstable powers, entitled to our sympathy and ouI
contempt mingled together. While I would clothe the Executive
with power to punish them, I would only —do it after I had avenged
the insults perpetrated by Great Britain, or I would in the same act
authorize the President to avenge them.
Sir, I tremble for the fame of America, for her honor, and for her
character, when we shall be silent in regard to British outrages; and
avenge ourselves by punishing the weaker powers instead of grappling with the stronger.  I never did fancy that policy, nor admire
that chivalry which induced a man, when insulted by a strong man
of his own size, to say that he would whip the first boy he found in
the street, in order to vindicate his honor; or, as is suggested by a
gentleman behind me, that he would go home and whip his wife
(laughter), in order to show his courage, inasmuch as he was afraid
to tackle the full grown man who had committed the aggression.
Sir, these outrages cannot be concealed, they cannot have the go
by; we must meet them face to face. Now is the time when
England must give up her claim to search American vessels, or we
must be silent in our protests and resolutions and valorous speeches
against that claim. It will not do to raise a navy for the Chinese
seas, nor for Puget Sound, nor for Mexico, nor for the South American republics. It may be used for those purposes, but England
must first be dealt with. Sir, we shall be looked upon as showing
the white feather, if we strike a blow at any feeble power, until these
English aggressions and insults are first punished, and security is
obtained that they are not to be repeated.
I shall vote for the amendment offered by my friend from Florida,
under the authority of Committee on Naval Affairs, providing for
ten sloops-of-war. I shall also vote for the proposition of my friend 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
from North Carolina for the ten gun-boats. I wish he had increased
the number to fifty, because I understand they can be constructed
for about $100,000 apiece, and $5,000,000 would give you fifty gunboats, vessels of a character more serviceable for coast defence than
any other vessels you could have. They could enter every harbor,
every creek, every bay, every nook where it is necessary.to afford
protection, and each one of them singly would be strong enough in
time of war to capture an enemy's merchant vessel, and bring it into
port or sink it, as easily as a seventy-four, or the largest class of
ships of war.  I would increase the number of gun-boats to fifty-I
would give the sloops asked for by the committee, but I would never
permit this Congress to adjourn, after all the resolutions wehave had
reported and all the brave speeches we have made, until we give the
President power, and thereby make it his duty, to repel in future
every repetition of these British outrages on our flag; and to use the
army, the navy, the militia, and the treasury, to any extent which
may be necessary for that purpose.
I concur entirely with the senator from Virginia in the reasons he
has given for the necessity of applying the provisions of the bill
which he has reported from the Committee on Foreign Relations, as
a substitute for one I introduced, to Mexico, Nicaragua, Costa Rica
and New Granada; but I do not perceive the necessity of limiting
the application to those countries, and not extending it beyond them.
If his objection be true that my proposition was to confer a warmaking power upon the President, then, by applying the whole
ower of these provisions to Mexico, and the other three countries,
e confers a war-making power to that extent.  I suppose, if it is no
violation of principle to give the President a war-making power as
applied to one country, it is no more so to give it to him generally.
The objection I had to his provision was this: I had introduced a
bill to authorize the President, in cases of flagrant violations of the
law of nations, under circumstances admitting of no delay, to repel
and punish the aggression. The senator from Virginia takes the
provisions of that bill and indorses them as to four feeble, crippled
powers, and omits the very country that is now committing outrages
upon our flag and our shipping. I had introduced a bill, general in
its provisions, applicable to England, France, Spain, Mexico, Central
America, South America-everywhere where there were flagrant
violation upon our flag, under circumstances admitting of no delay.
It does not follow that for every belligerent act we shall declare
war. The senator from Virginia, in his report, as chairman of the
Committee on Foreign Relations, quoted Chief Justice Marshall to
show that the practice of the right of search was a belligerent act.
All belligerent acts do not necessarily produce war. You may repel
them, you may grant letters of marque and reprisal-there are
various remedies short of war for repelling and redressing belligerent
acts. It does not follow, by any nmeans, when one nation perpetrates a violation of right against another, which, of itself is a bel
149 
THE LIFE AND SPEECltES OF
ligerent act, that war is the inevitable consequence, any more th1n
it follows, when one gentleman says something offensive to another,
that a peremptory challenge is a necessary result. A demand for
explanation may be necessary. There are preludes to a declaration.
So it is between nations. There may be a belligerent act performed.
It leads to negotiation, to remonstrance. When these means fail,
then the question comes, whether our rights or our honor are
involved to such an extent as to make it imperative to go to war as
a final resort?
If this violation of the freedom of the seas were a new thing; if
the- assertion of the right to search American vessels were now
made for the first, or eves the second time, we might not, although
treating it as a belligerent act, deem it necessary to go to war. But
when the question has gone through half a century of dispute; when
it has reached such a point that we refuse to discuss the question of
right any further; when we have asserted that the argument is exhausted, and that the only thing left is to resort to resistance if it be
persevered in any further; it will not do for us, in the face of these
outrages repeated each day, to be silent with regard to them, and
proceed to legislate for the punishment of Mexico, Nicaragua, and
other weak and feeble powers at a distance. The bill reported by
the senator from Virginia would be right if it were brought forward at a time when the aggravation came from those countries,
and not from England. I will vote for it. But to pass that by
itself, and remain silent with regard to these British outrages, is to
confess to the world that we are afraid of Great Britain, but we will
maintain our courage by punishing some smaller, feebler, weaker
power. I do not bring forward the proposition to revive the act of
the 3d of March, 1839, as a substitute for the bill reported by the
senator from Virginia, as he imagines. On the contrary, the two
bills ought to go together. The one which I bring forward is
applicable to England, and to her alone. It covers the present quarrels between us and Eifgland; not as a war measure, but as a peace
measure. The only change that I make between that act, as I bring
it forward now, and as it was in the shape in which it originally
passed, is to strike out the words "territory in dispute," and insert
"the claim of the right of search." Then the two cases are parallel, and the provision is as applicable to one as it is to the other.
Sir, there was one member of this body, who, when the measure
was brought in, in 1839, was disposed to treat it as an act of war,
until the great minds of the Senate, the patriots of that day, came
forward, and said  no, Great Britain is performing a belligerent act;
we must resist it at all hazards; if she perseveres in the wrong,
then the consequences be on her head, for having persevered in tho
wrong.  Hence, you find that Clay, Calhoun,'Webster, Buchanan,
and the leaders of the Senate of all parties of that day, united with
entire unanimity in conferring upon President Van B'uren the pow~
to resist it. One man only hesitated. A distinguished and re
I
150 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLA. S.
spected senator from New Jersey made the very point that is now
being made, as to its being an act of war; but a distinguished senator from Mississippi appealed to him, after a prelimin ary vote had
been taken, and it was ascertained that the Senate were unanimous
with one exception, not to persevere in his opposition, but allow the
Senate to stand unanimous in the assertion of a principle upon which
all agreed; and Mr. Southard, in deference to thile opinion of the
remainder of the Senate, waived his objections, and allowed the bill
to pass by a unanimous vote.
Sir, did it turn out to be a measure of war then? On the contrary, it resulted in peace, and you were saved frqm a war with
Great Britain on the northeastern boundary question, by the unanimity of Congress, at that time, in preparing to repel the assault.
The vote in the Senate was unanimous, and in the House of Representatives it was 197 against 6. This unanimity among the American
people, as manifested by their representatives, saved the two countries from war, and preserved peace between England and the United
States upon that question. If the Senate had been nearly equally
divided in 1839; if there had been but half a dozen majority for the
assage of that measure; if the vote had been nearly divided in the
'louse of Representatives, England would have taken courage from the
divisions in our own councils; she would have pressed her claim to a
point that would have been utterly inadmissible, and incompatible
with our honor,- and war would have been the inevitable consequence.
The true peace measure is that which resents the insult and redresses the wrong promptly upon the spot with a unanimity that
shows the nation cannot be divided. Unanimity now, prompt action,
and determined resistance to this claim of the right of search is the
best peace measure, and the only peace measure to which you can
resort  You have said that this nation will not submit to the right
of search; every department of this government has repeated it,
all political parties unite in the sentiment; there is one point on
which the American people are united, and on which they have
stood for half a century. It is violated now. The question is, whether we shall present the same unanimity in resistance that we do in
denying the right to commit the outrage. Unanimity on our part,
unanimity in our councils, firm resolve, but kind and respectful words
will preserve peace. Sir, I desire peace. I would lament a war
with England, or with any other power, as much as any other man
in the Senate. Nor do I think that my constituents desire war, but
I believe that the true way to prevent it is to be prepared to resist
aggression the moment it is made. What is the argument we hear
used to-day?  The senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hammond),
who knows that I have for him the highest respect, portrays to us
our weak, feeble, and defenceless condition; our thousands of miles
of coast; our small navy; our limited resources; to show that we
are not ready for a war now. Sir, let Great Britain believe thai
picture, and she will be ready now for a war with us.
151 
152    TEE LIFE AND BSPEEOHES OF
Our vacillation, our hesitation, our nervousness about the defened
bess condition of our coasts and of our cities, are the sources of en couragement to England.
Sir, I repel the idea that the American coast is so defenceless as
represented. I have passed round a great portion of the British
coast, and I undertake to assert that the American coast is in a better condition of defence than that of Great Britain. New York is
better defended than Liverpool or London to-day. It is easier for a
fleet to enter the harbor of Liverpool or London than New York.
There are not as many obstacles in the way in the British cities as
in the American. It is possible that a steam fleet might run by the
fortifications into either. It is not probable it would ever escape
from there if it did; but it is possible that it might effect its escape.
But, sir, I do not believe that our coast is more exposed than hers, and I
do not believe our commerce is more exposed than hers. I do not
believe England is any better prepared for war with us than we are
with her. If she has a larger navy, she has a more exposed interest
to protect by that navy. She has her troubles in India; she has
them at the Cape; she has them all over the world; and her navy is
divided, and her army divided to protect them in those detached
places on every continent, and every island of the globe.  Sir, the
extent of her power spreading all around the globe is one of the
greatest sources of her weakness; and the other fact that she is a
commercial nation, and we are an agricultural people shows that
she may be ruined, and her citizens starved, while we, although at
war abroad, are happy and prosperous at home.  Her statesmen have
more respect for us in this particular than we have for ourselves.
They will never push this question to the point of war. They will
look you in the eye, march to you steadily, as long as they find it is
prudent.  If you cast the eye down, she will rush upon you.  If
you look her in the eye steadily, she will shake hands with you as
friends, and have respect for you.
Suppose she should not, my friend from South Carolina asks me.
If she does not, then we will appeal to the God of battles; we will
arouse the patriotism of the American nation; we will blot out all
distinction of party; and the voice of faction will be hushed; the
American people will be a unit; none but the voice of patriotism
will be heard; and from the North and the South, from the East
and the West, we will come up as a band of brothers, animated by a
common spirit and a common patriotism, as were our fathers of the
Revolution, to repel the foreign enemy, and afterward differ as we
please, and discuss at our leisure, matters of domestic dispute.
As to my proposition for fifty gun-boats instead of twenty, I have
only to say that I prefer the larger number; and with all the respect
I have for the senator firom Mississippi and his superior knowledge
on all matters of military defence, I must be permitted to entertain
doubts whetlher he is correct in this particular. As to the usefulness
of those vessels called gun-boats, the experience of the last few 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
years shows that a gun-boat can wander from the Carolina coast,
and can venture to sea.  England constructed immense numbers of
them expressly for the Black Sea and the Baltic during the Russian
war; and she used them with great effect. She used them in the
Gulf of Finland and at Sweaborg. They were built expressly for that
service, and had to go three thousand miles to get to the Black Sea,
and nearly two thousand to get into the Gulf of Finland. England
has sent them to the West Indies; and the very outrages of which we
now complain are being perpetrated by gun-boats. The Forward,
that seized our vessels five hundred miles east of the Island of Cuba,
on the high seas, is a gun-boat.  The Buzzard, that seized our
vessels one thousand miles from Cuba, off in the Atlantic ocean, is a
gun-boat. All the vessels England is using now, for the annoyance
of our commerce, are gun-boats-that very despised little craft
which the senator from Mississippi thinks will never venture out
from shore. I think that if a gun-boat is powerful enough to stop
our merchliantmen on the high seas, search them, and take them into
port, or do what she pleases with them, such vessels will be efficient
enough in time of war for us to annoy the enemy's commerce with.
I think daily experience proves that these gun-boats are efficient not
only in the defence of harbors, in running into the mouths of rivers
and shallow bays, but in annoying the enemy's commerce, as they
are being used by England for that very purpose at this time.
It.so happens that only one of the vessels of Great Britain that
have been perpetrating these outrages on our commeree, which has
hovered around the coast of Ouba, is not a gun-boat, but small ide
wheel steamer-the Styx.
153 
1ti    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
ON THE INVASION OF STATES,
AND REPLY TO MR. FESSENDEN.
Delivered in the Senate of the United States, January 23, 1860.
The hour having arrived for the consideration of the special order
the Senate proceeded to consider the following resolution, submitted
oy Mr. Douglas on the 16th instant:
"Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to report a bill
for the protection of each State and Territory of the Union against invasion by
the authorities or inhabitants of any other State or Territory; and for the supression and  punishment of conspiracies or combinations in any State or
&erritory with intent to invade, assail, or molest the government, inhabitants,
property, or institutions of any other State or Territory of the Union."
MR. DOUGLAS.-Mr. President, on the 25th of November last, the
Governor of Virginia addressed an official communication to the
President of the United States, in which he said:
"I have information from various quarters, upon which I rely, that a con
spiracy of formidable extent, in means and numbers, is formed in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and other States, to rescue John Brown and his associates,
prisoners at Charlestown, Virginia. The information is specific enough to be
reliable.
" Places in Maryland, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, have been occupied as depots
and rendezvous by these desperadoes, and unobstructed by guards or otherwise, to invade this State, and we are kept in continual apprehension of outrage from fire and rapine. I apprise you of these facts in order that you may
take steps to preserve peace between the States."
To this communication, the President of the UInited States, on the
28th of November, returned a reply from which I read the following
sentence:
"I am at a loss to discover any provision in the Constitution or laws of the
T;Lited States which would authorize me  to' take steps' for this purpose."
[That is, to preserve the peace between the States.]
This announcement produced a profound impression upon the
public mind and especially in the slaveholding States.   It was
generally received and regarded as an authoritative announcement
that the Constitution of the United States confers no power upon
the Federal Government to protect each of the States of this Union
against invasion from the other State"  I shall not stop to inq(uire
whether the President meant to declare that the existing laws confer
no authority upon him, or that the Constitution empowers Congress 
STEPHEN  A. DOUGLAS.
to enact -aws which would authorize the federal interposition to protect the States from invasion; my object is to raise the inquiry, and
in ask the judgment of the Senate and of the House of Representatives on the question, whether it is not within the power of Congress, and the duty of Congress, under the Constitution, to enact all
laws which may be necessary and proper for the protection of each
and every State against invasion, either from foreign powers or from
any portion of the United States.
The denial of the existence of such a power in the Federal Governnient has  induced an inquiry  among  conservative men-men
loyal to the Constitution and devoted to the Union-as to what
means they have of protection, if the Federal Government is not
authorized to protect them against external violence. It must be
conceded that no community is safe, no State can enjoy peace or
prosperity, or domestic tranquillity, without security against external
violence. Every State and nation of the world, outside of this
Republic, is supposed to maintain armies and navies for this precise
purpose. It is the only legitimate purpose for which armies and
navies are maintained in time of peace. They may be kept up for
ambitious purposes, for the purposes of aggression and foreign war;
but the legitimate purpose of a military force in time of peace is to
insnre domestic tranquillity against violence or aggression from without. The States of this Union would possess that power, were it
not for the restraints imposed upon them by the federal Constitution.
When that Constitution was made, the States surrendered to the
Federal Government the power to raise and support armies, and the
power to provide and maintain navies, and not only thus surrendered
the means of protection from invasion, but consented to a prohibition
upon themselves which declares that no State shall keep troops or
vessels of war in time of peace.
The question now recurs, whether the States of this Union are in
that helpless condition, with their hands tied by the Constitution,
stripped of all means of repelling assaults and maintaining their
existence, without a guaranty from the Federal Government, to protect them against violence. If the people of this country shall settle
down into the conviction that there is no power in the Federal Government under the Constitution to protect each and every State
from violence, from aggression, from invasion, they will demand that
the cord be severed, and that the weapons be restored to their hands
with which they may defend themselves. This inquiry involves the
question of the perpetuity of the Union. The means of defence, the
means of repelling assaults, the means of providing against invasion,
must exist as a condition of the safety of the States and the existence
of the Union.
Now, sir, I hope to be able to demonstrate that there is no wrong
in this Union for which the Constitution of the United States la.
not provided a remedy. I believe, and I hope I shall be able to
maWtain, that a remedy is furnished for every wrong which can be
155 
156    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
perpetrated within the Union, if the Federal Government performs its
whole duty. I think it is clear, on a careful examination of lhe
Constitution, that the power is conferred upon Congress, first, to
Irovide for repelling invasion from foreign countries; and, secondly,
to protect each State of this Union against invasion from any other
State, Territory, or place, within the jurisdiction of the United States
I will-first turn your attention, sir, to the power conferred upon
Congress to protect the United States-including States, Territories.
and the District of Columbia; including every inch of ground within
our limits and jurisdiction-against foreign invasion.  In the eighth
section of the first article of the Constitution, you find that Congress
has power  " To raise and support armies; to provide and maintain a navy; to make
rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; to pro
vide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress
nsurrections, and repel invasions."
These various clauses confer upon Congress power to use the whole
military fore of the country for the purpose specified in the Cotnsti
tution.   They shall provide for the execution of.the laws of the
Union; and, secondly, suppress insurrections.   The insurrections
there referred to are insurrections against the authority of the United
States-insurrections against a State authority being provided for in
a subsequent section, in which the United States cannot interfere,
except upon the application of the State authorities. The invasion
which is to be repelled by this clause of the Constitution is an invasion of the United States. Thle language is, Congress shall havo
power to "repel invasions."  Thatgives the authority to repel the
invasion, no matter whether the enemy shJall land within the liiiimits
of Virginia, within the District of Columbia, within the Territory of
New Mexico, or anywhere else within the jurisdliction of the ULtited
States.  The power to protect every portion of the country against
invasion from foreign nations having thus been specifically conferred,
the framers of the Conistitution then proceeded to make guaranties
for the protection of each of the States by federal authority. I will
read the fourth section of the fourth article of the Constitution:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican
form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and, on
application of the legislature, or of the Executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) against domestic violence."
This clause contains three distinct guaranties: first, the United
States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form
of government; second, the United States shall protect each of themn
against invasion; third, the United States shall, on application of tho
legislature, or of the Executive, when the legislature cannot be con.
vened, protect them against domestic violence. Now, sir, I submit
to you whether it is not clear, from the very language of the Ooti 
STEPHEN A. D-OUGLAS. 
tution, that this clause was inserted for the purpose of making it the
duty of the Federal Government to protect each of the States against
invasion from any other State, Territory, or place within the jurisdiction of the United States?   For what other purpose was  the
clause inserted I The power and duty of protection as against foreign
nations had already been provided for. Thlis clause occurs among
the guaranties from the United States to each State, for the benefit
of each State, for the protection of each State, and necessarily fiom
other States, inasmuch as the guaranty had been given previously as
against foreign nations.
If any further authority is necessary to show that such is the true
construction of the Constitution, it way be found il the forty-third
number of the "Federalist," written by Jatnes Madison. Mr. Madison quotes the clause of the Constitution which I have read, giving
these three guaranties; and, after discussing the one guaranteeing to
each State a republican form of government, proceeds to consider
the second, which makes it the duty of the United States to protect
each of the States against invasion.  Here is what Mr. Madison says
upon that subject:
"A protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts compos.
ing it. The latitude of the expression here used seems to secure each State,
not only against foreign hostility, but against ambitious or vindictive enterprises of its more powerful neighbors. The history both of ancient and modern
confederacies proves thatthe weaker members of the IJnion ought not to be
insensible to the policy of this article."
The number of the "Federalist," like all the others of that celebrated work, was written after the Constitution was made, and before
it was ratified by the States, and with a view to securing its ratification; hence the people of the several States, when they ratified this
instrument, knew that this clause was intended to bear the construction which I now place upon it. It was intended to make it the
duty of every society to protect each of its parts; the duty of the
Federal Government to protect each of the States; and, he says, the
smaller States ought not to be insensible to the policy of this article
of the Constitution.
Then, sir, if it be made the imperative duty of the Federal Government, by the express provision of the Constitution, to protect each
of the States against invasion or violence from the othier States, or
fromn combinations of desperadoes within their limits, it necessarily
follows that it is the duty of Congress to pass all laws necessary and
proper to render that guaranty effectual. While Congress, in the
early history of the government, did provide legislation, which is
snppo(sed to be ample to protect the United States against invasion
from foreign countries and the Indian tribes, they have failed, up to
this time, to make any law for the protection of each of the States
against invasion from within the limits of the Union. I am unable
to accounu for this omission; but I presume the reason is to be found
157 
THE LIFE AND  SPEECIIES OF
in the fact that no Congress ever dreamed that such legislation wotuld
ever become necessary for the protection of one State of this Union
against invasion and violence from her sister States.  Who, until the
lIqarper's Ferry outrage, ever conceived that American citizens could
be so forgetful of their duties to themselves, to their country, to the
Constitution, as to plan an invasion of another State, with a'view of
inciting servile insurrection, murder, treason, and every other crime
that disgraces humanity? While, therefore, no blame can justly be
attached to our predecessors in failing to provide thle legislation
necessary to render this guaranty of the Constitution effectual; still,
since the experience of last year, we cannot stand justified in omit ting longer t( perform this imperative duty.
Tile question then remaining is, what legislation is necessary and
proper to render this guaranty of the Constitution effectual? I pre sltiCle thiere will be very little difference of opinion that it will be
necessary to place the whole military power of the government at the
disposal of the President, under proper guards and restrictions against
abuse, to repel and suppress invasion when thle hostile force shlall be
actually in the field.  But, sir, that is not sufficient.  Such legislation
would not be a full compliance with this guaranty of thl)e Constitu tion. Tile fiamers of that instrument meant more when they gave
the guaranty.  Mark the difference in language between the )pr)vi sion for protecting the United States against invasion and that for
protecting the States.  When it provided for protecting the United
States, it said Congress shall have power to "repel invasion." When
it came to make this guaranty to the States it changed the language
and said the United States shall "protect" each of the States against
Invasion. In one instance, the duty of the government is to repel;
in the other, the guaranty is that they will protect.  In other words,
the United States are not permitted to wait until the enemy shall be
upon your borders; until the invading army shall have been organized and drilled and placed in march with a view to the invasion;
but they must pass all laws necessary and proper to insure protection
and domestic tranquillity to each State and Territory of this Union
against invasion or hostilities firom other States and Territories.
Then, sir, I hold that it is not only necessary to use the military
power when the actual case of invasion shall occur, but to authorize
the judicial department of the government to suppress all conspiracies
and conibinations in the several States with the intent to invade a
State, or mtolest or disturb its government, its peace, its citizens, its
property, or its institutions.  You must punish the conspiracy, the
combination witlh intent to do the act, and then you will suppress it
in advance. The e is no principle more familiar to the legal profession than that wherever it is proper to declare an act to be a crime, it
is proper to punish a conspiracy or combination with intent to perpetrate the act. Look upon your statute books, and I presume you will
find an enactment to punish the counterfeiting of the coin of the
United States; and then another section to punish a mnan for having
158 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
,iountefeit coin in his possession with intent to pass it; and another
aection to punish him for having the molds, or dies, or instruments
;or counterfeiting, with intent to use them. This is a familiar principle in legislative and judicial proceedings. If the act of invasion is
criminal, the conspiracy to invade should also be made criminal.  If
it be nnlawi,l and illegal to invade a State, and run off fugitive
slaves, wily not make it unlawful to form conspiracies and combinaticns in the several States with intent - do the act?  We have been
told that a notorious man who has recently suffered death for his
crimes upon the gallows, boasted in Cleaveland, Ohio, in a public
lecture, a year ago, that he had then a body of men employed in
running away horses from the slaveholders of Missouri, and pointed
to a livery stable in Cleaveland which was full of the stolen horses
at that time.
I think it is within our competency, and consequently our duty,
to pass a law making every conspiracy or combination in any State
or Territory of this Union to invade another with intent to steal or
run away property of any kind, whether it be negroes, or horses, or
property of any other description, intfo another State, a crime, and
punish the conspirators by indictment in the United States courts,
and confinement in the prisons or penitentiaries of the State or Ter
ritory where the conspiracy may be formed and quelled. Sir, I
would carry these provisions of law as far as our constitutional
power will reach. I would make it a crime to form conspiracies
with a view of invading States or Territories to control elections,
whether they be under the garb of Emigrant Aid Societies of New
England, or Blue Lodges of Missouri. (Applause in the galleries.)
In other words, this provision of the Constitution means more than
the mere repelling of an invasion when the invading army shall
reach the border of a State. The language is, it shall protect the
State against invasion; the meaning of which is, to use the language of the preamble to the Constitution, to insure to each State
domestic tranquillity against external violence.   There can be no
peace, there can be no prosperity, there can be no safety in any
community, unless it is secured against violence from abroad. Why,
sir, it has been a question seriously mooted in Europe, whether it
was not the duty of England, a power foreign to France, to pass laws
to punish conspiracies in England against the lives of the princes of
France. I shall not argue the question of comity between foreign
States. I predicate my argument upon the Constitution by which
we are governed, and which we have sworn to obey, and demand
that the Constitution be executed in good faith so as to punish and
suppress every combination, every conspiracy, either to irvade a
State or to molest its inhabitants, or to disturb its proi rty, or to
subvert its institutions and its government.  I believe tlis can be
effectually done by authorizing the United States courts in the
several States to take jurisdiction of the offence, an(1 punish the
violation of the law with appropriate punishments.
159 
l6()    THE  LIFE AND  SPEECHES OF
It cannot be said that the time has not yet arrived for such Iekgis
lation. It cannot be said with truth that the Harper's Ferry case
will not be repeated, or is not in danger of repetition. It is only
necessary to inquire into the causes which produced the Harper's
Ferry outrage, and ascertain whether those causes are yet in active
operation, and then you can determine whether there is any ground
for apprehension that that invasion will be repeated. Sir, what
were  the causes which produced  the Harper's  Ferry outrage?
Without stopping to adduce evidence in detail, I have no hesitation
in expressing my firm and deliberate conviction that the Harper's
Ferry crime was the natural, logical, inevitable result of the doctrines and teachings of the Republican party, as explained and
enforced in their platform, their partisan presses, their pamphlets
and books, and especially in the speeches of their leaders in and out
of Congress. (Applause in the galleries.)
I was remarking that I considered this outrage at Harper's Ferry
as the logical, natural consequence of the teachings and doctrines of
the Republican party.   I am  not making this statement for the
purpose of crimination or partisan effect. I desire to call the attention of members of that party to a reconsideration of the doctrines
that they are in the habit of enforcing, with a view to a fair judgment whether they do not lead directly to those consequences, on
the part of those deluded persons who think that all they say is
meant, in real earnest, and ought to be carried out.  The great
principle that underlies the Republican party is violent, irreconcilable, eternal warfare upon the institution of American slavery, with
the view of its ultimate extinction throughout the laud; sectional
war is to be waged until the cotton field of the South shall be cultivated by free labor, or the rye fields of New Y ork, and Massachusetts shall be cultivated by slave labor.  In furtherance of this
article of their creed, you find their political organization not only
sectional in its location, but one whose vitality consists in appeals to
notrthern passion, northern  prejudice, northern ambition against
southern States, southern institutions, and southern people. I have
had some experience in fighting this element within the last few
years, and I find tbat the source of their power consists in exciting
the prejudices and the passions of the northern section against those
of the southern section. They not only attempt to excite the North
against the Soith, but they invite the South to assail and abuse and
traduce the North. Southern abuse, by violent men, of northern
statesmen and -northern people, is essential to the triumph of the
Republican cause.  Hence the course of argument which we have to
meet is not only repelling the appeals to northern passion and prejudice, but we have to encounter their appeals to southern men to
assail us, in order that they may justify their assaults upon the plea
of self-defence.
Sir, when I returned home in 1858, f )r the purpose of canvassing
Illinois, with a view to reilection, I had to moet this issue of the 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
"irrepressible conflict." It is true that the senator from New York
had not then made his Rochester speech, and did not for four months
afterward. It is true that he had not given the doctrine that precise
nanie and form; but the principle was in existence, and had been
proclaimed by the ablest and the most clear-headed men of the
party. I will call your attention, sir, to a single passage from a
speech, to show the language in which this doctrine was stated in
Illinois before it received the name of the "-irrepressible conflict."
The Republican party assembled in State convention in June, 1858.
in Illinois, and unanimously adopted Abraham  Lincoln as their
candidate for United States senator. Mr. Lincoln appeared before
the convention, accepted the nomination,  and  made a speechwhich had been previously written and agreed to in caucus by most
of the leaders of the party. I will read a single extract from that
speech:
" In my opinion, it [the slavery agitation] 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 forward till it shall become alike lawfl  in all the States-old as well
as new, North as well as South."
Sir, the moment I landed upon the soil of Illinois, at a vast gathering of many thousands of my constituents to welcome me home, I
read that passage, and took direct issue with the doctrine contained
in it — as being revolutionary and treasonable, and inconsistent with
the perpetuity of this Republic. That is not merely the individual
opinion of Mr. Lincoln; nor is it the individual opinion merely of the
senator from New York, who four months afterward asserted the
same doctrine in different language; but, so far as I know, it is the
general opinion of the members of the Abolition or Republican party.
They tell the people of the North that unless they rally as one man,
under a sectional banner, and make war upon the South with a view
to the ultimate extinction of slavery, slavery will overrun the whole
North, and fasten itself upon all the free States. They then tell the
South, unless you rally as one man, binding the whole southern people into a sectional party, and establish slavery all over the free
States, the inevitable consequence will be that we shall abolish it in
the slaveholding States. The same doctrine is held by the senator
from New York in his Rochester speech. He tells us that the
States must all become free, or all become slave; that tl, South,
in other words, must conquer and subdue the North, or the North
must triumph over the South, and drive slavery from within its
lim                               its.
Mr. President, in order to show that I have not misinterpreted the
position of the senator from New York, in notifying the South that,
161 
162    THE LINE AND SPEEOHE8'F
if they wish to maintain slavery within their limits, they lmust alsa
fasten it upon the northern States, I will read an extract from his
Rochester speech:
"It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces; and
it means that the United States must and will, sooner or later, become either
entirely a slaveholding nation, or entirely a free-labor nation. Either the cotson and rice fields of South Carolina, and the sugar plantations of Louisiana,
will ultimately be tilled by free labor, and Charleston and New Orleans become
marts for legitimate merchandise alone, or else the rye fields and wheat
fields of Massachusetts and New York must again be surrendered by their
farthers to slave culture and to the production of slaves, and Boston and
New York become once more markets for trade in the bodies and souls
of men."
Thus, sir, you perceive that the theory of the Republican party is,
that there is a conflict between two different systems of institutions
in the respective classes of States-not a conflict in the same States,
but an irrepressible conflict between the free States and the slave
States; and they argue that these two systems of State cannot permanently exist in the same Union; that the sectional warfare must
continue to rage and increase with increasing fury until the free
States shall surrender, or the slave States shall be subdued. Hence,
while they appeal to the passions of our own section, their object is
to alarm the people of the other section, and drive them to madness,
with the hope that they will invade our rights as an excuse for somo
of our people to carry on aggressions upon their rights. I appeal to
the candor of senators, whether this is not a fair exposition of the
tendency of the doctrines proclaimed  by the Repubican party.
The creed of that party is founded upon the theory that, because
slavery is not desirable in our States, it is not desirable anywhere;
because firee labor is a good thing with us, it must be the best thing
everywhere.  In other words, the creed of their party rests upon the
theory that there must be uniformity in the domestic institutions
aind internal polity of the several States of this Union. There, in my
opinion, is the fundamental error upon which their whole system
rests. In the Illinois canvass, I asserted, and now repeat, that uniformity in the domestic institutions of the different States is neither
possible nor desirable. That is the very issue upon which I conducted the canvass at home, and it is the question which I desire
to present to the Senate.  I repeat, that uniformity in domestic
institutions of the different States, is neither possible nor desirable.
Was such the doctrine of the framers of the Constitution?  I wish
the country to bear in mind that when the Constitution was adopted,
the Union consisted of thirteen States, twelve of which were slaveholding States, and one a free State. Suppose this doctrine of uniformity on the slavery question had prevailed in the Federal Convention, do the gentlemen on that side of the House think that freedom would have triumphed over slavery? Do they imagine that the
one free State would have outvoted the twelve slaveholding State 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
and thus have abolished slavery throughout the land by a Constitutional provision? On the contrary, if the test had then been
made, if this doctrine of uniformity on the slavery question had then
been proclaimed and believed in, with the twelve slaveholding States
against one free State, would it not have resulted in a constitutional
provision fastening slavery irrevocably upon every inch of American
soil, North as well as South?  Was it quite fair in those days for the
friends of free institutions to claim that the Federal Government
must not touch the question, but must leave the people of each State
to do as they pleased, until under the operation of that principle they
secured the majority, and then wield that majority to abolish savery
in the other States of the Union?
Sir, if uniformity in respect to domestic institutions had been
deemed desirable when the Constitution was adopted, there was
another mode by which it could have been obtained. The natural
mode of obtaining uniformity was to have blotted out the State
governments, to have abolished the State Legislatures, to have conferred upon Congress legislative power over the municipal and
domestic concerns of the people of all the States, as well as upon
Federal questions affecting the whole Union; and if this doctrine of
uniformity had been entertained and favored by the framers of the
Constitution, such would have been the result. But, sir, the framers
of that instrument knew at that day, as well as we now know, that
in a country as broad as this, with so great a variety of climate, of
soil, and of production, there must necessarily be a corresponding
diversity of institutions and domestic regulations, adapted to the
wants and necessities of each locality.'he framers of the Constitution knew that the laws and institutions which were well adapted to
the mountains and valleys of New England, were  ill-suited to
the rice plantations and the cotton-fields of the Carolinas. They
knew that our liberties depended upon reserving the right to the
people of each State to make their own laws and establish their own
institutions, and control them at pleasure, without interference from
the Federal Government, or from any other State or Territory, or
any foreign country. The Constitution, therefore, was based, and
the Union was founded, on the principle of dissimilarity in the
domestic institutions and internal polity of the several States. The
Union was founded on the theory that each State had peculiar
interests, requiring peculiar legislation, and peculiar institutions, different and distinct from every other State. The Union rests on the
theory that no two States would be precisely alike in their domestic
policy and institutions.
Hence, I assert that this doctrine of uniformity in the domestie
institutions of the different States is repugnant to the Constitution,
subversive of the principles upon which the Union was based, revolutionary in its character, and leading directly to despotism if it is
ever established. Uniformity in local and domestic affairs in a count
try of great extent is despotism always.  Show me centralism prr
25
163
0 
164    THE. LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
scribing uniformity from the capital to all of its provinces in tneir
local and domestic concerns, and I will show you a despotism as
odious and as insufferable as that of Austria or of Naples. Dissimi larity is the principle upon which the Union rests. It is founded
upon the idea that each State must necessarily require different
regulations; that no two States have precisely the same interests,
and hence do not need precisely the same laws; and you cannot
account for this confederation of States upon any other principle.
Then. sir, what-becomes of this doctrine that slavery must be established in all the States or prohibited in all the States? If we
only conform to the principles upon which the Federal ULion was
iormed, there can be no conflict.  It is only necessary to recognize
the right of the people of every State to have just such institutions
as they please, without consulting your wishes, your views, or your
prejudices, and there can be no conflict.
And, sir, inasmuch as the Constitution of the United States confers upon Congress the power coupled with the duty of protecting
each State against external aggression, and inasmuch as that includes
the power of suppressing and punishing conspiracies in one State
against the institutions, property, people, or government of every
other State, I desire to carry out that power vigorously. Sir, give
us such a law as the Constitution contemplates and authorizes, and I
will show the senator from New York that there is a constitutional
mode of repressing the "irrepressible conflict."  I will open the
prison door to allow conspirators against the peace of the Republic
and the domestic tranquility of our States to select their cells wherein
to drag out a miserable life, as a punishment for their crimes against
the peace of society.
Can any man say to us that although this outrage has been perpetrated at Harper's Ferry, there is no danger of its recurrence? Sir,
is not the Republican party still embodied, organized, confident of
success, and defiant in its pretensions? Does it not now hold and
proclaim the same creed that it did before this invasion? It is true
that most of its representatives here disavow the acts of John Brown
at Harper's Ferry. I am glad that they do so; I am rejoiced that
they have gone thus far; but I must be permitted to say to them that
it is not sufficient that they disavow the act, unless they also repudiate and denounce the doctrines and teachings which produced the
act. Those doctrines remain the same; those teachings are being
poured into the minds of men throughout the country by means of
speeches and pamphlets and books and through partisan presses.
The causes that produced the Harper's Ferry invasion are now in
active operation. It is true that the people of all the border States
are required by the Constitution to have their hands tied, without
the power of self-defence, and remain patient under a threatened invasion in the day or in the night? Can you expect people to be
patient, when they dare not lie down to sleep at night without first
istatioingl sentinels around their houses to see if a bal, of marauders
I 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS-.
and murderers are not approaching with torch and pistol? Sir, it
requires more patience than fieemen ever should cultivate, to submit
to constant annoyance, irritation and apprehension.  If we expect to
preserve this Union, we must remedy, within the Union and in obe dience to the Constitution, every evil for which disunion would flir nish a remedy. If the Federal Government fails to act, either from
choice or from an.opprehension of the want of power, it cannot be
expected that the States will be content to remain unprotected.
Then, sir, I see no hope of peace, of fraternity, of good feeling, be tween the different portions of the United States, except by bringing
to bear the power of the Federal Government to the extent author ized by the Constitution-to protect the people of all the States
against any external violence or aggression. I repeat, -that if the
theory of the Constitution shall be carried out by conceding the right
of the people of every State to have just such institutions as they
choose, there cannot be a conflict, much less an "irrepressible conflict," between the free and the slaveholding States.
Mr. President, the mode of preserving peace is plain. This system
of sectional warfare must cease. The Constitution has given the
power, and all we ask of Congress is to give the means, and we, by
indictments and convictions in the federal courts of our several
States, will make such examples of the leaders of these conspiracies
as will strike terror into the hearts of the others, and there will be
an end of this crusade. Sir, you must check it by crushing out the
conspiracy, the combination, and then there can be safety.  Then we
shali be able to restore that spirit of fraternity which inspired oux
revolutionary fathers upon every battle-field; which presided over
the deliberations of the convention that framed the Constitution, and
filled the hearts of the people who ratified it. Then we shall be able
to demonstrate to you that there is no evil unredressed in the Union
for which disunion would furnish a remedy. Then, sir, let us execute the Constitution in the spirit in which it was made. Let Congress pass all the laws necessary and proper to give full and complete
effect to every guaranty of the Constitution. Let them authorize
the punishment of conspiracies and combinations in any State or
Territory against the property, institutions, people or government
of any other State or Territory, and there will be no excuse, no desire, for disunion.  Then, sir, let us leave the poople of every State
perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their
vwn way. Let each of them retain slavery just as long as itpleases,
and abolish it when it chooses. Let us act upon that good old
golden principle which teaches all men to mind their own business
and let their neighbors alone. Let this be done, and this Union can
endure forever as our fathers made it, composed of free and slave
States, just as the people of each State may determine for themselves.
Mr. Fessenden having replied at some length to Mr. Doug.
las, he made the following rejoinder:
185 
I(;    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
MR. DOUGLAS.-lMr. President, I shall not follow the senator -rom
Maine through his entire speech, but simply notice such points m
demand of me some reply. He does not know why I introduced my
resolution; he cannot conceive any good motive for it; he thinks
there imust be some other motive besides the one that has been
avowed. There are some men, I know, who cannot conceive that a
man can be governed by a patriotic or proper motive; lt it is not
among that class of men that I look for those who are governed by
motives of propriety. I have no impeachment to make of his motives. I brought in this resolution because I thought the time had
arrived when we should have a measure of practical legislation. I
had seen expressions of opinion against the power from authorities
so high that I felt it my duty to bring it to the attention of the Senate. I had heard that the senator from Virginia had intimated some
doubt on the question of power, as well as of policy. Other senators
discussed the question here for weeks when I was confined to my
sick bed. Was there anything unreasonable in my coming before
the Senate at this time, expressing my own opinion, and confining
myself to the practical legislation indicated in the resolution? Nor,
sir, have I in my remarks gone outside of the legitimate argument
pertaining to the necessity for this legislation. I first showed that
there had been a great outrage; I showed what I believed to be the
causes that had produced the outrage, and that the causes which produced it were still in operation; and argued that, so long as the
party to which the gentlemen belong remains embodied in full forcot
those-causes will still threaten the country. That was all.
The senator from Maine thinks he will vote for the bill that will
be proposed to carry out the objects referred to in my resolution.
Sir, whenever that senator and his associates on the other side of
the chamber will record their votes for a bill of the character
described in my resolution and speech, I shall congratulate the country upon the progress they are making toward sound principles.
Whenever he and his associates will make it a felony for two or
more men to conspire to run off fugitive slaves, and punish the
conspirators by confinement in the penitentiary, I shall consider
that wonderful changes have taken place in this, country. I tell the
senator that it is the general tone of sentiment in all those sections
of the country where the Republican party predominate, so far as I
know, not only not to deem it a crime to rescue a fugitive slave, but
to raise mobs to aid in the rescue.  He talks about slandering the
Republican party when we intimate that they are making a warfare
upon the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Sir, where, in the
towns and cities with Republican majorities, can you execute the
Fugitive Slave Law?  Is it in the town where the senator from New
York resides?  Do you not remember the Jerry rescuers?  Is it at
Oberlin, there the mob was raised that made the rescue last year
and produced the riot?
Wky not make it a crime to form conspiracies and combinations 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
tto run off fugitive slaves, as well as to run off horses, or any other
property? I am talking about conspiracies which are so common in
all our northern States, to invade and enter, through their agents,
the slave States, and seduce away slaves and run them off by the
underground railroad, in order to send them to Canada. It is these
conspiracies to perpetrate crime with impunity, that keep upthe irritation. John Brown could boast, in a public lecture in Cleveland,
that he and his band had been engaged all the winter in stealing
horses and running them off from the slaveholders ill Missouri, and
that the livery stables were then filled with stolen horses, and yet
the conspiracy to do it could not be punished.
Sir, I desire a law that will make it a crime, punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, after conviction in the United States
court, to make a conspiracy in one State, against the people, property, government, or institutions, of another. Then we shall get~
at the root of the evil. I have no doubt that gentlemen on the other
side will vote for a law which pretends to comply with the guaranties
of the Constitution, without carrying any force or efficiency in its
provisions. I have heard men abuse the Fugitive Slave Law, and
express their willingness to vote for amendments; but when you
came to the amendments which they desired to adopt, you found
they were such as would never return a fugitive to his master.
They would go for any fugitive slave law that had a hole in it big
enough to let the negro drop through and escape; but none that
would comply with the obligations of the Constitution. So we shall
find that side of the chamber voting for a law that will, in terms,
disapprove of unlawful expeditions against neighboring States, without being efficient in affording protection.
But the senator says it is a part of the policy of the northern
Democracy to represent the Republicans as being hostile to southern
institutions. Sir, it is a part of the policy of the northern Democracy, as well as their duty, to speak the truth on that subject. I
did not suppose that any man would have the audacity to arraign a
brother senator here for representing the Republican party as dealing  in denunciation and insult of the institutions of the South
Look to your Philadelphia platform, where you assert the sovereign
power of Congress over the Territories for their government, and
demand that it shall be exerted against those twin relics of barbarism-polygamy and slavery.
Mr. President, for what purpose does the Republican party appeal
to northern passions and northern prejudices against southern institutions and the southern people, unless it is to operate upon those
institutions? They represent southern institutions as no better thae
polygamy; the slaveholder as no better than the polygamist; and
complain that we should intimate that they did not like to associato
with the slaveholder any better than with the polygamist.
I have always noticed that those men who were so far off from
the slave States that thel did not know anything about them, arn
167 
168   TWE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
most anxious for the fate of the poor slave.  Those men who are so
far off that they do not know what a negro is, are distressed to death
about the condition of the poor negro. (Laughter.) But, sir, go into
the border States, where we associate across the line, where the civilities of society are constantly interchanged; where we trade with
each other, and have social and commercial intercourse, and there
you will find them standing by each other like a band of brothers.
Take southern Illinois, southern Indiana, southern Ohio, and that
part of Pennsylvania bordering on Maryland, and there you will
find social intercourse;  commercial  intercourse; good feeling;
because those people know the condition of the slave on the opposite side of the line; but just in proportion as you recede from the
slave States, just in proportion as the people are ignorant of the
facts, just in that proportion party leaders can impose on their sympathies and honest prejudices.
Sir, I know it is the habit of the Republican party, as a party,
wherever I have met them, to make the warfare in such a way as to
try to rally the whole North on sectional grounds against the South.
I know that it is to be the issue, and it is proven by the speech of the
senator from New York, which I quoted before, and that of Mr. Lincoln,
so far as they are authority. I happen to have those speeches before
me.  The senator fioin Maine has said that neither of these speeches
justified the conclusion that they asserted, that the free States and the
siaye States cannot coexist permanently in the same republic. Let us
see whether they do or not. Mr. Lincoln says:
* A house divided against itself cannot stand.  I believe this government
cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free."
Then hlie goes on to say they must all be one thing or all the other,
or else the Union cannot endure. What is the meaning of that
language, unless it is that the Union cannot permanently exist, half
slave and half free-that it must all become one thing or all become
the other? That is the declaration. The declaration is that the
North must combine as a sectional party, and carry on the agitation
so fiercely, up to the very borders of the slaveholding States, thlat the
master dare not sleep at night for fear that the robbers, the John
Browns, will come and set his house on fire, and murder the wo(men
and chl-ildren, before morning,  It is to surround the slaveholdiiig
States by a cordon of free States, to use the language of the senator;
to hem them in, in order that you may smother them out. The
senator avowed, in his speech to-day, their object to be to hem in the
slave States, in order that slavery may die out. How die out?  Confine it to its present limits; let the ratio of increase go on by the
lows of nature; and just in proportion as the lands in the slaveholding
States wear out, the negroes increase, and you will soon reach that
point where the soil will not produce enough to feed tle slaves; then
bem them in, and let them starve out-let them die out by starvation, 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
Tht is the policy-hem them in, and starve them out.  Do as the
French did in Algeria, when the Arabs took to the caverns-smoke
them out, by making fires at the mouths of the caverns, and keep tlhem
burning until they die. The policy is, to keep up this agitation along
the line; make slave property insecure in the border States; keep the
master constantly in apprehension of assault, till he will consent to
abandon his native country, leaving his slaves behind him, or to
remove them  further south.  If you can force Kentucky thus to
abolish slavery, you make Tennessee the border State, and begin tlie
same operation upon her.
But sir, let us see whether the senator from New York did not
proclaim the doctrine that free States and slave States cannot permanently exist in the same republic.  He said:
"It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces; and
it means that the United States must, and will, sooner or later, become either
entirely a slaveholding nation or entirely a free-labor nation."
The opposing conflict is between the States; the Union cannot
remain as it now is, part free and part slave. The conflict between
free States and slave States must go on until there is not a slave State
left, or until they are all slave States. That is the declaration of the
senator from New York. The senator from Maine tried to make the
Senate believe that I had misrepresented the senator from New York
and Mr. Lincoln, of Illinois, in stating that they referred to a conflict
between States.  He said that all they meant was that it was a con flict between free labor and slave labor in the same State.
Now, sir, let me submit to that man's candor whether he will
insist on that position.  They both say the contest will go on until
the States become all free or all slave. Then, when is the contest going to end?  When they become all slave?  Will there not
be the same conflict between free labor and slave labor, after every
State has become a slave State, that there is now? If that was the
meaning, would the conflict between slave labor and free labor cease
even when every State had become slaveholding? Have not all the
slaveholding States a large number of free laborers within their
limits; and if there is an irrepressible conflict between free labor and
slave labor, will you remove that conflict by making the States all
slave? Yet, the senator from New York says they must beomnae all
slave or all free before the conflict ceases.  Sir, that shows tnat the
senator from New Y'o;rk meant what I represented him as meaning.
It shows that a man who knows the meaning of words, and has the
heart to express them as they read, cannot fail to know that that
was the meaning of those senators. The boldness with which a
hliarge of misrepresentation may be made in this body will not give
character to it when it is contradicted by the facts.  I dislike to
have to repel these charges of unfairness and misrepresentation; yet
-the senator began with a series of innuendoes, with a series of cornm
lot 
170    THE LIIFE ANID SPEECHES 0o
plaints of misrepresentation, showing that he was afraid to meet the
retl issues of his party, and would make  up for that by persoual
assaults and innuendoes against the opposite party.
He goes back to a speech of rine in opposition to the Lecompton
constitution, in which I said that if you would send that constituaion back and let the people of Kansas vote for or against it, if they
noted for a free State or a slave State I would go for it without
taring whether they voted slavery up or down. He thinks it is a
great charge against me that I do not care whether the people vote
it up or vote it down.
The idea is taken from a speech in the Senate-the first speech I
made against the Lecompton constitution. It was quoted all over
Illinois by Mr. Lincoln in the canvass, and I repeated the sentiment
each time it was quoted against me, and repeated it in the South as
well as the North. I say this: if the people of Kansas want a slave
State, it is their business, not mine; if they want a free State, they
have a right to have it; and hence, I do not care, so far as regards
my action, whether they make it a free State or not; it is none of
my business. But the senator says he does care, he has a preference
between freedom and slavery.  How long would this preference last
if he was a sugar planter in Louisiana, residing on his estate, instead
of living in Maine? Sir, I hold the doctrine that a wise statesman
will adapt his laws to the wants, conditions and interests of the
people to be governed by them. Slavery may be very essential in
one climate and totally useless in another. If I were a citizen of
Louisiana I would vote for retaining and maintaining slavery, because I believe the good of that people would require it. As a citizen of Illinois I am utterly opposed to it, because our interests would
not be promoted by it.  1 should like to see the Abolitionist who
would go and live in a southern country that would not get over his
scruples very soon and have a plantation as quickly as he could get
the money to buy it.
I have said and repeat that this question of slavery is one of
elimate, of political economy, of self-interest, not a question of legislation.  Wherever the climate, the soil, the health of the country
are such that it cannot be cultivated by white labor, you will have
African labor, and compulsory labor at that. Wherever white labor
can be employed cheapest and most profitably, there African labor
will retire and white labor will take its place.
You cannot force slavery by all the acts of Congress you may take
on one inch of territory against the will of the people, and you cannot by any law you can make keep it out from one inch of American
territory where the people want it. You tried it in Illinois. By the
Ordinance of 1787, slavery was prohibited, and yet our people, believing that slavery would be profitable to them, established hereditary servitude in the Territory by territorial legislation, in defiance
of your federal ordinance.  We maintained slavery there just so long
as Congress said we should not have it, and we abolished it at just 
STEPHEN  A. DOUGLAS. L
the moment you recognized us as a State, with the right to do as we
pleased. When we established it, it was on the supposition that it
was our interest to do so. When we abolished it, we did so because
experience proved that it was not our interest to have it. I hold
that slavery is a question of political economy, to be determined by
climate, by soil, by production, by self-interest, and hence the people
to be affected by it are the most impartial jury to try the fact,
whether their interest requires them to have it or not.
But the senator thinks it is a great crime for me to say that I do
not care whether they have it or not. I care just this far: I want
every people to have that kind of government, thatsystem of laws,
that class of institutions, which will best promote their welfare, and
I want them to decide for themselves; and so that they decide it to
suit themselves, I am satisfied, without stopping to inquire or caring
which way they decide it. That is what I meant by that declaration, and I am ready to stand by it.
The senator has made the discovery-I suppose it is very new, for
he would not repeat anything that was old, after calling me to account for expressing an idea that had been heard of before-that I
re-opened the agitation by bringing in the Nebraska Bill in 1854;
and he tries to put the responsibility of the crimes perpetrated by his
political friends, and in violation of the law, upon the provisions of
the law itself. We passed a bill to allow the people of Kansas to
form and regulate their own institutions to suit themselves. No
sooner had we placed that law on the statute-book, than his political
friends formed conspiracies and combinations in the different New
England States to import a set of desperadoes into Kansas to control
the elections and the institutions of that country in fraud of the law
of Congress.
Sir, I desire to make the legislation broad enough to reach conspiracies and combinations of that kind; and I would also include
combinations and conspiracies on the other side. My object is to
establish firmly the doctrine that each State is to do its own voting,
establish its own institutions, make its own laws without interference,
directly or indirectly, from any outside power. The gentleman says
that is squatter sovereignty. Call it squatter sovereignty, c,all it
popular sovereignty, call it what you please, it is the great principle
of self-government on which this Union was formed, and by the preservation of which alone it can be maintained. It is the right of the
people of every State to govern themselves and make their own laws,
and be protected from outside violence or interference, directly or
indirectly. Sir, I confess the object of the legislation I contemplate
is to put down this outside interference; it is to repress this "irrepressible conflict;" it is to bring the government back to the true
principles of the Constitution, and let each people in this Union res!
secure in the enjoyment of domestic tranquillity without appreltesion from neighboring. States.
171 
172    THE  LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
ON THE ADMISSION OF KANSAS UNDER THE WYALN                  DOTT CONSTITUTION.
IN REPLY TO MR. SEWARD AND MR. TRUMBULL.
Delivered in the Senate of the United States, February 29, 1860.
MR. PRESIDENT: I trust I.shall be pardoned for a few remarks upon
so much of the senator's speech as consists in an assault on the Democratic party, and especially with regard to the Kansas-Nebraska
bill, of which I was the responsible author. It has become fashionable now-a-days for each gentleman making a speech against the Democratic party to refer to the Kansas-Nebraska Act as the cause of all
the disturbances that have since ensued. They talk about the repeal
of a sacred compact that had been undisturbed for more than a quarter of a century, as if those who complained of violated faith had
been faithful to the provisions of the Missouri Compromise. Sir,
wherein consisted the necessity for the repeal or abrogation of that
act, except it was that the majority in the northern States refused
to carry out the Missouri Compromise in good faith? I stood willing
to extend it to the Paeific Ocean, and abide by it forever, anid the
entire South, without one exception in this body, was willing thus
to abide by it; but the freesoil element of the northern States was
so strong as to defeat that measure, and thus open the slavery question anew.  The men who now complain of the abrogation of that
act were the very men who denounced it, and denounced all of us
who were willing to abide by it so long as it stood upon the statutebook. Sir, it was the defeat, in the House of Representatives, of the
enactment of the bill to extend the Missouri Compromise to the
Pacific Ocean, after it had passed the Senate on my own motion, that
opened the controversy of 1850, which was terminated by the adoption of the measures of that year.
We carried those Compromise measures over the head of the senator from New York and his present associates. We, in those measures, established a great principle, rebuking his doctrine of intervention by the Congress of the United States to prohibit slavery in
the Territories. Both parties, in 1852, pledged themselves to abide
by that principle, and thus stood pledged not to prohibit slavery in
the Territories by act of Congress. The Whig party affirmed that
pledge, and so did the Democracy.-  In 1854 we only carried out, in
the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the same principle that had been affirmed
in the Compromise measures of 1850.  I repeat that their resistance
to carrying out in good faith the settlement of 1820 their defeat o*
I 
STEPHEN  A. DOIUGLAS.
the bill for extending it to the Pacific Ocean, was the sole cause of
the agitation of 1850, and gave rise to the necessity of establishing
the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the
Territories.
Hence I am not willing to sit here and allow the senator from
New York, with all the weight of authority he has with the powerful
party of which he is the head, to arraign me and the party to which
I belong with the responsibility for that agitation which rests solely
upon him and his associates. Sir, the Democratic party was willing
to carry out the Compromise in good faith. Having been defeated
in that for the want of numbers, and having established the principle
of non-intervention in the Compromise measures of 1850, in lieu of
it, the Democratic party from that day to this has been faithful to
the new principle of adjustment. Whatever agitation has grown
out of the question since, has been occasioned by the resistance of
the party of which that senator is the head, to this great principle
which has been ratified by the American people at two Presidential
elections. If he was willing to acquiesce in the solemn and repeated
judgment of that American people to which he appeals, there would
be no agitation in this country now.
But, sir, the whole argument of that senator goes far beyond the
question of slavery, even in the Territories. His entire argument
rests on the assumption that the negro and the white man were equal
by Divine law, and hence that all laws and constitutions and governments in violation of the principle of negro equality are in violation
of the law of God. That is the basis upon which his speech rests.
He quo,tes the Declaration of Independence to s&low that the fathers
of the Revolution understood that the negro was placed on an equality
with the white man, by quoting the clause, "we hold these truths to
be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed
by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, amonog whlich are
Jife, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Sir, the doctrine of that
senator and of his party is-and I have had to ineet it for eight
years-that the Declaration of Independence intended to recognize
the negro and the white man as equal under the Divine law, and
hence that all the provisions of the Constitution of the United States
which recognize slavery are in violation of the Divine law. In other
words, it is an argument against the Constitution of the United
States upon the ground that it is contrary to the law of God.   The
senator from New York has long held that doctrine.   The senator
fromn New York has often proclaimed to the world that the Constitution Qf the United States was in violation of the Divine law, and
that senator will not contradict the statement.  I hlave an extract
fromn one of his speeches now before me, in which that proposition is
distinctly put forth. In a speech made in the State of Ohio, in 1848,
he said:
' Slavery is the sin of not some of the States only, but of them all; of not
oae nstionality, but of all nations. It p)erverted and corrupted the moral sense
173 
THE LIFE AND BPEECHES OF
of mankind deeply and universally, and this perversion became a universal
habit. Habits of thought become fixed principles. No American State has
yet delivered itself entirely from these habits.   We, in New York, are guilty
of slavery still by withholding the right of suffrage from the race we have
emancipated. You, in Ohio, are guilty in the same way by a system of black
laws still more aristocratic and odious. It is written in the Constitution of the
United States that five slaves shall count equal to three freemen as a basis of
representation; and it is written, also, IN VIOLATION OF DIVINE LAW,
that we shall surrender the fugitive slave who takes refuge at our firesides from
his relentless pursuer."
There you find his doctrine clearly laid down, that the Constitution
of the United States is "in violation of the Divine law," and there fore, is not to be obeyed. You are told that the clause relating to
fugitive slaves, being in violation of the Divine law, is not binding
on ria,L-kind. This has been the doctrine of the senator from New
York for years. I have not heard it in the Senate to-day for the
first time.  I have mnet in my own State, for the last ten years, this
same doctrine, that the Declaration of Independence recognized the
negro and the white man as equal; that the negro and white man
are equals by Divine law, and that every provision of our Constitu tion and laws which establishes inequality between the negro and
the white man, is void, because contrary to the law of God.
The senator from New York says, in the very speech from wh-}
I have quoted, that New York is yet a slave State. Why? Not
that she has a slave within her limits, but because the Constitution
of New York does not allow a negro to vote on an equality with a
white man. For that reason he says New York is still a slave State;
for that reason every other State that discriminates between the
negro and the white man is a slave State, leaving but a very few
States in the Union that are free from his objection. Yet, notwith standing the senator is committed to these doctrines, notwithstanding
the leading men of his party are committed to them, he argues that
they have been accused of being in favor of negro equality, and
says the tendency of their doctrine is the equality of the white man.
Bie introduces the objection, and fails to answer it.  He states the
proposition and dodges it, to leave the inference that he does not
indorse it. Sir, I desire to see these gentlemen carry out their principles to their logical conclusion. If they will persist in the declaration that the negro is made the equal of the white man, and that
any inequality is in violation of the Divine law, then let them carry
it out in their legislation by conferring on the negroes all the rights of
citizenship the same as on white men. For one, I never held to any
such doctrine. I hold that the Declaration of Independence was
only referring to the white man-to the governing race of this country, who were in conflict with Great Britain, and had no reference to
the negro race at all, when it declared that all men were created
equal.
Sir, if the signers of that declaration had understood the instruoent then as the senator from Now York now construes it, were
174 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
they not bound on that day, at that very hour, to emancipate all
their slaves? If MAir. Jefferson had meant that his negro slaves were
created by the Almighty his equals, was he not bound to emancipato
the slaves on the very day that he signed his name to the Declaration
of Independence? Yet no one of the signers of that declaration
emancipated his slaves. No one of the States on whose behalf the
declaration was signed, emancipated its slaves until after the Revolution was over. Every one of the original colonies, every one of
the thirteen original States, sanctioned and legalized slavery until
after the Revolution was closed. These facts show conclusively that
the Declaration of Independence was never intended to bear the
construction placed upon it by the senator from New York, and by
that enormous tribe of lecturers that go through the country delivering lectures in country school-hiouses and basements of churches to
abolitionists, in order to teach the children that the Almighty had
put his seal of condemnation upon any inequality between the white
man and the negro.
Mr. President, I am free to say here-what I have said over and
over again at home-that, in my opinion, this government was made
by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity for
ever, and should be administered by white men, and by none other
whatsoever.
MR. DOOLITTLE.-I will ask the honorable senator, then, why not
give the Territories to white men?
MR. DOUGLAS.-Mr. President, I am in favor of throwing the Ter ritories open to all the white men, and all the negroes, too, that
choose to go, and then allow the white men to govern the Territory.
I would not let one of the negroes, free or slave, either vote or hold
office anywhere, where I had the right, under the Constitution, to
prevent it. I am in favor of each State and each Territory of this
Union taking care of its own negroes, free or slave.  If they want
slavery, let them have it; if they desire to prohibit slavery, let them
do it; it is their business, not mine. We in Illinois tried slavery
while we were a Territory, and found it was not profitable; and
hence we turned philanthropists and abolished it, just as our British
friends across the ocean did. They established slavery in all their
colonies, and when they found they could not make any more money
out of it, abolished it.  I hold that the question of slavery is one of
political economy, governed by the laws of climate, soil, productions,
and self-interest, and not by mere statutory p)rovision. I repudiate
the doctrine, that because free institutions may be best in one climate
they are, necessarily, the best everywhere; or that because slavery may
be indispensable in one locality, therefore it is desirable everywhere.
[ hold that a wise statesman will aliway s adapt his legislation to tne
wants, interests condition, and necessities of the people to be go.
verned by it.  One people w:Ai boar different institutions from
another.  One climate demands different institutions from anotler.
ll,5 
176    RHE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
f repeat, then, what I h]lave often had occasion to say, that I d- 1-ot
think uniformity is either possible or desirable. I wish to see n. two
States precisely alike in their domestic institutions in this Union.
Our system rests on the supposition that each State has something
in her condition or climate, or her circumstances, requiring laws -and
institutions different from every other State of the Union. Hence 1
answer the question of the senator from Wisconsin, that I am willing
hat a Territory settled by white men- shall have negroes, free or
slave, just as the white men shall determine, but not as the negroes
shall prescribe.
The senator from New York has coined a new definition of the
States of the Union-labor States and capital States. The capital
States, I believe, are the slaveholding States; the labor States are
the non-slaveholding States. It has taken that senator a good many
years to coin that phrase and bring it into use. I have heard him
discuss these favorite theories of his for the last ten years, I think,
and I never heard of capital States and labor States before. It
strikes me that something has recently occurred up in New England
that makes it politic to get up a question between capital and labor,
and take the side of the numbers against the few. We have seen
some accounts in the newspapers of combinations and strikes among
thie journeymen shoemakers in the towns there-labor against capi tal. The senator has a new word ready coined to suit their case,
and make the laborers believe that he is on the side of the most
numerous class of voters.
What produced that strike among the journeymen shoemakers I
Why are the mechanics of New England, the laborers and the - employees, now reduced to the-starvation point? Simply because, by
your treason, by your sectional agitation, you have created a strife
between the North and the South, have driven away your southern
customers, and thus deprive the laborers of the means of suppon
This is the fruit of your Republican dogmas. It is another ste?, following John Brown, of the "irrepressible conflict." Therefore we
now get this new coinage of "labor States "-he is on the side of
the shoemakers (laughter),  and "capital States "-he is against
those that furnish the hides. (Laughter.) I think those shoemakers
will understand this business. They know why it is that they do
not get so many orders as they did a few months ago. It is not
confined to the shoemakers; it reaches every mechanic's shop and
every factory. AJll the large laboring establishments of the North
feel the pressure produced by the doctrine of the "irrepressible conflict." This new coinage of words will not save them from the just
responsibility that follows the doctrines they have been inculcating.
If they had abandoned the doctrine of the "irrepressible conflict,"
and proclaimed the true doctrine of the Constitution, that each State
is entirely- free to do just as it pleases, have slavery as long as it
chooses, and abolish it when it wishes there would be no conflict 
STEPHE' A. DOUGLAS.
the northern and southern States would be brethren; there would
be fraternity between us, and your shoemakers would not strike for
higher prices.
*      *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Sir, the feeling among the masses of the South we find typified in
the dress of the senator from Virginia (Mr. Mason); they are deternined to wear the homespun of their own productions rather than
trade with the North.  That is the feeling which has produced tlis
state of distress in our manufacturing towns.
The senator from New York has also referred to the recent action
of the people of New Mexico, in establishing a code for the protection
of property in slaves, and he congratulates the country upon the
final success of the advocates of free institutions in Kansas. He
could not fail, however, to say, in order to preserve what he thought
was a striking antithesis, that popular sovereignty in Kansas meant
State sovereignty in Missouri. No, sir, popular sovereignty in
Kansas was stricken down by unholy combination in New England
to ship men to Kansas-rowdies and vagabonds-with the Bible in
one hand and Sharpe's rifle in the other, to shoot down the friends
of self-government. Popular sovereignty in Kansas was stricken
down by the combinations in the northern States to carry elections
under pretence of emigrant aid societies. In retaliation, Missouri
formed aid societies too; and she, following your example, sent men
into Kansas, and then occurred the conflict. Now, you throw the'
blame upon Missouri merely because she followed your example, and
attempted to resist its consequences. I condemn both; but I condemn a thousand-fold more those that set the example and struck
the first blow, than those who thought they would act upon the
principle of fighting the devil with his own weapons, and resorted to
the same means that you had employed.
But, sir, notwithstanding the efforts of emigrant aid societies,
the people of Kansas have had their own way, and the people
of New Mexico have had their own way. Kansas has adopted a
free State; New Mexico has established a slave Territory. I am
content with both. If the people of New Mexico want slavery, let
them have it, and I never will vote to repeal their slave code.  If
Kansas does not want slavery, I will not help anybody to force it on
her.  Let each do as it pleases.  When Kansas comes to the conclusion that slavery will not suit her, and promote her interest better
than the prohibition, let her pass her own slave code; I will not
pass it for her. Whenever New Mexico gets tired of her code, she
must repeal it for herself; I will not repeal it for her. Non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the Territories is the platform
on which I stand.
But I want to know why will not the senator from New York
carry out his principles to their logical conclusions?  Why is there
not a man in that whole party,;-n this body or the House of Repre seatatives, bold enough to redeem the pledges which that party has
177 
178    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OP
made to the country? I believe you said, in your Philadolpbtls
platform, that Congress had sovereign power over the Territories
for their government, and that it was the duty of Congress, to pro.
hibit, in all the Territories, those twin relics of barbarism, slavery
and polygamy.  Why do you not carry out your pledges?  Why do
you not introduce your bill?  The senator from New York says they
have no new measures to originate; no new movement to make; no
new bill to bring forward.  Then what confidence shall the Ameri
can people repose in your faith aindsincerity, when, having the
power in one House, you do not bring — forward a bill to carry out
your principles? The fact is, these principles are avowed to get
votes in the North, but not to be carried into effect-by acts of Congress. You are afraid of hurting your party if you bring in your
bill to repeal the slave code of New Mexico; afraid of driving off the
conservative men; you think it is wise to wait until after the election.
I should be glad to have confidence enough in the sincerity of the
other side of the chamber to suppose  that they had sufficient
courage to bring forward a law to carry out their principles to their
logical conclusions. I find nothing of that. They wish to agitate,
to excite the people of the North against the South to get votes for
the Presidential election; but they shrink from carrying out their
measures lest they might throw off some conservative voters who do
not like the Democratic party.
But, sir, if the senator from New York, in the event that he is
made President, intends to carry out his principles to their logical
conclusions, let us see where they will lead him. In the samne speech
that I read fromn a few minutes ago, I find the following. Addressing the people of Ohio, he said:
"You blush not at these things, because they have become as familiar as
household words; and your pretended free-soil allies claim peculiar merit for
maintaining these miscalled guaranties of slavery, which they find in the national compact. Does not all this prove that the Whig party have kept up
with the spirit of the age; that it is as true and faithful to huiman freedom as
the inert conscience of the American people will permit it to be? What then;
you say, can nothing be done for' freedom, because the public conscience re.
mains inert?  Yes, much can be done, everything can be done.  Slavery can
be limited to its present bounds."
That is the first thing that can be done-lavery can be limited to
its present bounds. What else?
" It can be ameliorated. It can and must be abolished, and you and I can and
must do it."
There you find are two propositions: first, slavery was to be limited
to the States in which it was then situated. It did not then exist in
any Territory.  Slavery was confined to the States.  The first proposition was that slavery must be restricted, and confined to those
States. Tile second was, that he, as a New Yorker, and they, the
people of Ohio, must and would abolish it; that is to say, abolish it 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
In thle States. They could abolish it nowhere else. Every appeal they
nlake to Northern prejudice and passion, is against thle institution of
slavery everywhere, and they would not be able to retain their abo
lition allies, the rank and file, unless they held out the hope that it w&as
the mission of the Republican party, if successful, to abolish slavery
in the States as well as in the Territories of the UIion.
And again in the same speech, the senator fromn New York advised
the people to disregard constitutional obligations in these words:
"But we must begin deeper and lower than the composition and combination
of factions or parties, wherein the strength and security of slavery lie. You
answer that it lies in the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions
and laws of slaveholding States. Not at all. It is in the erroneous sentiwent
of the American people. Constitutions and laws can no more rise above the
virtue of the people than the limpid stream can climb above its native spring.
Inculcate the love of freedom and the equal rights of man under the paternal
roof; see to it that they are taught in the schools and in the churches; reform
your own code; extend a cordial welcome to the fugitive who lays his weary
limbs at your door, and defend him as you would your paternal gods; correct
your own error, that slavery is a constitutional guaranty which may not be
released, and ought not to be relinquished."
I know they tell us that all this is to be done according to the
(Constitutiou; they would not violate the Constitution except so far
as the Constitution violates ttie law of God-that is all-and they are
to be the judges of how far the Constitution does violate the law Of
God. They say that every clause of the Constitution that recognizes
property in slaves, is in violation of the Divine law, and hence should
not be obeyed; and with that interpretation of the Constitution, they
turn to the South and say, "We will give you all your riglhts under
the Constitution, as we explain it."
Then the senator devoted about a third of his speech to a very
beautiful homily on the glories of our Union. All that he has said,
all that any other man has ever said, all that the most eloquent
tongue can ever utter, in behalf of the blessings and tlhe advantages of
this glori(ous Union, I fully indorse. But still, sir, I am prepared to say,
that the Union is glorious only when the Constitution is preserved
inviolate.  He eulogized the Union.  I, too, am for the Union; I indorse the eulogies; but still, what is the Union worth, unless the Constitution is preserved and maintained inviolate in all its provisions?
Sir, I leave no faith in thle Union-loving sentiments of tlhose who
will tiot carry out the Constitution in good faith, as our fathers made
it.  Professions of fidelity to the Union will be taken for naught, unless they are acconipanied by obedience to the Constitution upon
which the Union rests.  I have a right to insist that tleC(onstitution
shall be maintained inviolate in all its parts, notonly thlat which suits
the temper of the North, but every clause of that Constitution, whether you like it or dislike it.  Your oath to support the Constitution
biiinds you to every line, word, and syllable of the instrument.  You
ham6 no riglht to:ay that any given clause is in violation )f the Divine
26
179 
THE LIFE AND SrPEECHES OF
taw, and that, therefore, you will not observe it. The man who dis.
obeys any one clause on the pretext that it violates the Divine law,
or on any other pretext, violates his oath of office.
But, sir, w]hat a commentary is this pretext that the Constitl tion is
a violation of the Divine law, upon those revolutioinary fathers whose
eulogies we have heard here to-day.  Did the fi-amers of that instt'u
ment make a Constitution in violation of the law of God? If so, how
do your corsciences allow you to take the oath of office? If the sena  to)r fiom New York still holds to his declaration that the claise in the
Constitution relative to fugitive slaves is a violation  of the Divine
law, how dare hle, as an honest man, take an oath to support tIle in  strutnent?  Did he understand that he was defying thle authority of
Heaven when he took the oath to support thlat instruinmenit?
Thus, we see, the radical difference between the Republican party
and the Democratic party is this: we stand by the Constitution as
our fathers made it, and by the decisions of the constituted authori ties as they are pronounced in obedience to the Constitution. They
repudiate the instrument, substitute their own will for that of the
constituted authorities, annul such provisions as their fanaticism, or
prejudice, or policy, may declare to bein violation of God's law, and
then say: "We will protect all your rights under the Constitution as
expounded by ourselves; but not as expounded by the tribunal cre ated for that purpose."
Mr. President, 1 shall not occupy further time in the discussion of
this question to-night. I did not intend to utter a word; and I
should not have uttered a word upon the subject, if the senator from
New York had not made a broad arraignment of the Democratic
party, and especially of that portion of the action of the party for
which I was most immediately responsible. Everybody knows that I
brought forward and helped to carry through the Kansas-Nebraska
act and that I was active in support of the compromise measures of
1850. I have heard bad faith attached to the Democratic party for
that act too long to be willing to remain silent and seem to sanction
it even by tacit acquiescence.
-MR. TRUMBULL having replied,
MR. DOUGLAS responded as follows: I have but a few words to
say, in reply to my colleague; and first on the question, whether
Illinois was a slave Territory or not, and whether we ever had
slavery in the State. I dislike technical denials, conveying an idep,
contrary to the fact. My colleague well knows, and so do I, that,
practically, we had slaves there while a Territory, and after we became a State. I have seen him dance to the music of a negro slav,
in Illinois many a time, and I have danced to the same music myself.
[Laughter.] We have both had the same negro servants to black our
boots and wait upon us, and they were held as slaves.  We know,
therefore, that slavery did exist in the State in fact, and slavery did
exist in the Territory in fact; and his denial relates exclusively ~o
the question whether slavery was legal.  Whether legal or not, it
1.80 
STEPHE'N A. DOUGLAS.
existed in fact. The master exercsed his dominion over the slave,
and those negroes were held as slaves until 1847, when we established the new Constitution. There are gentlemen around me here,
who know the fact-gentlemen who were nursed by slaves in
Illinois. No man familiar with the history of Illinois will deny the
fact. The quibble is, that the Territorial laws authorizing the introduction of slaves were void because the ordinance of 1787 said slavery
was prohibited.
Notwithstanding that ordinance, the old French inhabitants, who
had slaves before the ordinance, paid no attention to it, and held
slaves still. Slaves were held there all the time that Illinois was a
Territory; and after it became a State they were-held till they
all died out, and their children became emancipated under the constitution.  It is a fact; we all know it. That gentlemen have seen
many of those old French slaves, who were held in defiance of the
ordinance. Whether they were lawfully held or not, the Territorial
authorities sustained the rights of the master. Not only were slaves
held by the French before the ordinance, but the Territorial legislature passed a law in substance to this effect: any citizen might go to
Kentucky, or any other State or Territory, where slaves were held,
and bring slaves into the Territory of Illinois, take them to a county
court, and in open court enter into an indenture by which the slave
and his posterity were to serve him for ninety-nine years; and in
the event that the slave refused to enter into the indenture, the
master should have a certain time to take him out of the Territory
and sell him. The senator now says that law was not valid. Valid
or not, it was executed; slaves were introduced, and they were
held; they were used; they were worked; and they died slaves.
That is the fact. I have had handed to me a book showing the number
of slaves in Illinois at the taking of the various censuses, by which it
appears that, when the census of 1810 was taken, there were in Illinois 168 slaves; in 1820, 917; in 1830, 747; and in 1840, 331. In
1850 there were none, for the reason that, in 1847, we adopted a
new constitution that prohibited slavery entirely, and by that time
they had nearly all died. The census shows that at one time there
were as many as nine hundred slaves, and at all times the dominion
of the master was maintained. -
The fact is, that the people of the Territory of Illinois, when it was
a Territory, were almost all from the southern States, particularly
from Kentucky and Tennessee. The southern end of the State was
the only part at first settled-that part called Egypt-because it is
the land of letters and of plenty. Civilization and learning all originated in Egypt. The northern part of the State, where the political
friends of my colleague now preponderate, was then in the possession
of the Indians, and- so were northern Indiana and northern Ohio;
and a Yankee could not get to Illinois at all, unless he passed down
through Virginia and over iuto Tennessee and through Kentucky.
The consequence was, that ninety-nine out of a hunchded of the sot,
181 
182    THE LIFE AND  SPEECHES OF
tlers were from the slave States. They carried the old family
servants with them, and kept them.  They were told, "Here is an
ordinance of Congress passed against your holding them." They
said, "What has Congress to do with our domestic institutions?
Congress had better mind its own business, and let us alone; we
know what we want better than Congress;" and hence they passed
this law to bring them in and make them indentured. Under that,
they established slavery and held slaves as long as they wanted them.
When they assembled to make the constitution of Illinois, in 1818,
for admission into the Union, nearly every delegate to the convention
brought his negro along with him to black his boots, play the fiddle,
wait upon him, and take care of his room. They had a jolly time
there; they were dancing people, frolicksome people, people who
enjoyed life; they had the old French habits. Slaves were just as
thick there as blackberries.
But they said "Experience proves tlhat it is not going to be profit
able in this climate." There were no scruples about it. Every one
of them was nuirsed by it.  His mother and his father held slaves.
They had no scruples about its being right, but they said, "We cannot make any money by it, and as our State runs way off north up to
those eternal snows, perhaps we shall gain population faster if we
stop slavery and invite in the northern population;" and, as a matter
of political policy, state policy, they prohibited slavery themselves.
How did they prohibit it? Not by emancipating, setting at liberty,
the slaves then in the State, for I believe that has never been done by
any legislative body in America, and I doubt whether any one will
ever arrogate to itself the right to divest property already there; but
they provided that all slaves then in' the State should remnain slaves
for life; that all indentured persons should fulfill the terms of their
indentures. Ninety-nine years was about long enough, I reckon, for
grown persons at least.
All persons of slave parents, after a certain time, were to be free
at a certain age, and all born after a certain other period, were to be
free at their birth. It was a gradual systenm of emancipation. Hence,
I now repeat,- that so long as the ordinance of 1787, passed by Congress, said Illinois should not have slavery, she did have it; and the
very first day that our people arrived at that condition that they
could do as they pleased, to wit, when they became a State, they
adopted a system of gradual emancipation; but still slavery continued
in the State, as the census of 1820, the census of 1830, and the census
of 1840, show, until the new constitution of 1847, when nearly all those
old slaves had died out, and probably there were not a halfdozen
alive.  That was the way slavery was introduced and expired in
Illinois. Whatever quibbles there may be about legal construction,
legal right, these are the,facts. 
Look into the Territorial legislation, and you will finr  as rigorous
a code for the protection of slave property as in any State; a code
prescribing the control of the master, providing that if a negro slave 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
should leave his master's farm without leave, or in the night time,
he should be punished by so many stripes, and if he committed such
an offence he should receive so many stripes, and so on; as rigorous
a code as ever existed in any southern State of this Union. Not
only that, but after the State came into the Union, the State of
Illinois reenacted that code, and continued it up to the time that
slavery died out under the operation of the State constitution.
I dislike, sir, to have a controversy with nmy oolleague about historical facts. I suppose the Senate of the United States has no particular interest in the early history of Illinois, but it has become
obligatory on me to vindicate my statement to that extent.
Now, sir, a word about the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.
I have had occasion to refer to that before in the Senate, and I am
sorry to have to refer to it again.
My colleague arraigns me as chairman of the Committee dn Territories against myself as a member of the Senate in 1854, upon the
Nebraska Bill. He says that, as chairman of the committee, I
reported that we did not see proper to depart from the example of
1850; that as the Mexican laws were not then repealed in terms, we
did not propose in terms to repeal the Missouri restriction, butthere thie senator stops, and there the essense of the report beginsbut, the report added, this commlittee proposes to carry out the principles embodied in the Compromise measures of 1850 in precise
language, and then we go on to state what those principles were;
and one was, that the people of a Territory should settle the question
of slavery for themselves, and we reported a bill giving them that
power.
But inasmuch as the power to introduce slavery, notwithstanding
the Mexican laws, was conferred on the Territorial legislatures under
the compromise measures of 1850, the right to iutroduce it into
Kansas, notwithstanding the Missouri restriction, was also proposed
to be conferred without expressly repealing the restriction. The
legal effect was precisely the same. Afterward some gentlemen
said they would rather have the legal effect expressed in plain language.
I said, "If you want a repealing act, have it: it does not alter
the legal effect." I said so at the time, as the debates show; and
hence I put in the express provision that the Missouri act was
thereby repealed. It did not change the legal effect of the bill; but
that variation of language has been the staple of a great many stump
speeches, a great many miserable quibbles of county court lawyers,
a great many attempts to prove inconsistency by small politicians in
the country. Be it so. The people understand that thing. The
ebject I had in view was to allow the people to do as they pleased.
The first bill accomplished that; the amendment accomplished it.
Whether that was the object of others or not, is another question.
That was my object. The two bills, in my opinion, had the aatue
legal effect; but I said if any one doubts it, I will make it p)hfuu
183 
184    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
Some said, "we doubt whether that gives the right."  Then 1 made
it plain, and brought it in in express terms, and he calls a change of
language. without varying the legal effect, a change of policy. My
colleague is welcome to make the most out of that. I have had
that arraignment over and over again.
The senator has some doubt as to whether I am in good
standing in  my  own  party;  whether I am  a good  represen tative of northwestern Democracy. I have nothing to say about
that. I will allow the people to speak in their conventions on that
subject. Whether I represent the Democracy of Illinois or not, I
shall not say  The people understand all that.  I can only say that
I have been in the Democratic party all my life;' and I know what
our Democrats mean.   My colleague indorsed and approved the
compromise measures of 1850.  He was a Democrat a few years ago.
Eveh in 1856, he declared, I believe, that he could not vote for me,
if nominated, but he would vote for Mr. Buchanan; but, after the
nomination, he did not like the platform, and he went over. I have
no objection to that; it is all right enough. I never intended to
taunt him with inconsistency; but I do not think he is as safe and a2
authoritative an expounder of the Republican party as the senator
from New York. The senator from New York says that a State
that does not allow a negro to vote on an equality with a white iman
is a slave State. I read his speech here to-day. I suppose the sena tor from New York is a pretty good Republican. I thought he spoke
with some authority for his party.  I did not suppose those neophytes who had just come into the party were going to unsettle and
unhorse the leader and embodiment of the party so quickly, and
rescribe a platform that would rule out the senator from New
ork.  I must be permitted, therefore, to take the authority of the
leaders of the party in preference to those who are kept in the rank
and file until they have served an apprenticeship. (Laughter.)
The senator from New York says it is slavery not to allow the
negro to vote. Well, sir, I hold that that is political slavery. If
you disfranchise a man, you make him a political slave.  Deprive a
white man of a voice in his government, and, politically, he is a
slave. Hence the inequality you- create is slavery to that extent.
My colleague Will not allow a negro to vote. He lives too far south
in Illinois for that, decidedly. He has to expound the creed down
in Egypt.  They have other expositions up north.  The creed is
pretty black in the north end of the State; about the centre it is a
pretty good mulatto, and it is almost white when you get down into
Egypt. It assumes paler shades as you go south. The Democrats
of Illinois have one creed, and we can proclaim it everywhere alike.
The senator, my colleague, complains that I represent his party to
be in favor of negro equality.  No such thing, says he: "I tbel  my
colleague to his teeth it is not so."  There is something very fe.arful
in the manner in which he said it!  Senators know that P,e is a
dangerous man who gays things to a man's teeth, and I shall bo very 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
cautious how I reply. But he says he does- hold that by the law of
God the negro and the white man are created equal  that is, he
pays, in a state of nature; and, therefore, he says he indorses that
clause of the Declaration of Independence as including the negro as
well as the white man. I do not think I misstate my colleague. He
thinks that clause of the Declaration of Independence includes the
negro as well as the white man. He declares, therefore, that the
negro and the white man were created equal. What does that
Declaration also say: "We hold these truths to be self-evident;
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
ights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
,f the negro and the white man are created equal, and that equality
is an inalienable right, by what authority is my colleague and his
party going to deprive the negro of that inalienable right which he
got directly from God? He says the Republican party is not in
favor of according to the negro an inalienable right which he received directly from his Maker.  Oh, no; he tells me to my teeth
that they are not in favor of that; they will not obey the laws of
God at all.  Their creed is to to take away inalienable rigits.
Well, I have found that out before, and that is just the reason
1 complain of them, that they are for taking away inalienable
rights.
If they will cling to the doctrine that the Declaration of Independence conferred certain inalienable rights, among which, we are
told, is equality between the white man and the negro, they are
bound to make the human laws they establish conform to those Godgiven rights which are inalienable. If they believe the first proposition, as honest men, they are bound to carry the principle to its
lo(gical conclusion, and give the negro his equality and voice in the
government; let him vote at elections, hold office, serve on juries,
make him judge, governor, (" senator.")  No, they cannot make him
a senator, because the Supreme Court has decided that he is not a
citizen. The Dred Scott decision is in the way. Perhaps that is
the reason of the objection to the Dred Scott decision, that a negro
cannot be a senator. I say, if you hold that the Almighty created
the negro the equal of the white man, and that equality be an inalienable right, you are bound to confer the elective franchise and
every other privilege of political equality on the negro. The senator
from New York stands up to it like a man. His logic drove him
there, and he had the honesty to avow the consequence of his own
doctrine. That is to say, he did it before the Harper's Ferry raid.
He did not say it quite as plainly to-day; for I will do the senator
from New York the justice to say, that, in his speech to-day, I think
he made the most successful effort, considered as an attempt to conceal what hlie meant. (Laughter.) He dealt in vague generalities;
he dealt in disclaimers and general denials; and he covered it all up
with a verbiage that would allow anybody to infer just what he
pleased, but not to commit the senator to anything; and to let the
185. 
186    THE LIFE'AND SPEECHES OF
country know that there was no danger from tl e success of the Re ublican party; that they did not mean any hairn; that if men, be lieving in the truth of their doctrines, did go and commit invasions,
murders, robberies, and treason, all they had to do was to disavow
the men who were fools enough to believe them, and they are not
responsible for the consequences of their own action!
Now, Mr. President, I wish my colleague were equally as frank as
the senator from New York.  That senator is in favor of the equal ity of the negro with the white man, or-lse he would not say that
the Almighty guaranteed to them an inalienable right of equality.
My colleague dare not deny the inalienable rightsof the negro, for
if he did, the Abolitionists would quit him. He dare not avow it,
lest the old line Whigs should quit him; hence he is riding double
on this question. I have no desire to conceal my opinions; and I
repeat that I do not believe the negro race is any part of the governing element in this country, except as an element of representation
in the manner expressly provided in the Constitution. This is a
white man's government, made by white men for the benefit of
white men, to be administered by white men and nobody else; and
I should regret the day that we ever allowed the negroes to have a
hand in its administration. Not that the negro is not entitled to
any privileges at all; on the contrary, I hold that humanity requires
us to allow the unfortunate negro to enjoy all the rights and privileges that he may safely exercise consistent with the good of society.
We may, with safety, give them some privileges in Illinois that
would not be safe in Mississippi; because we have but few, while
that State has many.  We will take care of our negroes, if Mississippi will take care of hers. Each has a right to decide for itself
what shall be the relation of the negro to the white man within its
own limits, and no other State has a right to interfere with its determination.
On that principle there is no "irrepressible conflict;" there is no
conflict at all.  If we will just take care of our own negroes, and
mind our own business, we shall get along very well; and we ask
our southern friends to do the same, and they seem pretty well disposed to do it. Therefore, I am in favor of just firing a broadside
into our Republican friends over there, who will keep interfering
with other people's business.  That is the complaint I have of them.
They keep holding up the negro for us to worship, and when they
get the power, they will not give him the rights they claim for him;
they will not give him his inalienable rights. New York has not
given the negro those inalienable rights of suffrage yet. The senator from New York represents a slave State, according to his own'
speech; because New York does not allow the negro to vote on an
equality with a white man.  It is true, in New York they do allow
a negro to vote,'if he owns $250 worth of property, but not with
out. They suppose $250 just compensates for the difference betws"=  rich negro and a Ipoor white man. (Laughter.) They 
8TEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
allow the rich negro to vote, and do not allow the poor one; and
the senator from New York thinks that is a system of slavery. It
may be; let New York decide that; it is her business.  I do not
want to interfere with it. Just let us alone. We do not want
negro suffrage. We say "non-interference;" hands off. If you
like the association of the negroes at the polls, that is your business;
if you want them to hold office, so that they do not come here, give
offices to them, if you choose; if you want them for magistrates, that
is your business; but you must not send them here; because we do
not allow anybody but citizens to hold seats on this floor; and,
thank God, the Dred Sott case has decided that a egro is not a
citizen.
187 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
ON THE STATE OF THE UNION.
HIS LAST SPEECH IN CONGRESS.
Ddivered in the Senate of the Untted States, January 3, 1861.
The Senate, having under consideration the following-resolution
reported by the select committee of thirteen, appointed to consider
the agitated and distracted condition of the country,
Resolved, That the committee have not been able to agree upon any general
plan of adjustment, and report that fact to the Senate together with the journal
of the committee.
Mr. DOUGLAS said:
MR. PRESIDENT: NO act of my public life has ever caused me so
much regret as the necessity of voting in the special committee of
thirteen for the resolution reporting to the Senate our inability to
agree upon a general plan of adjustment which would restore peace
to the country and insure the integrity of the Union. If we wish
to understand the real causes which have produced such widespread and deep-eated discontent in the slaveholding States, we
must go back beyond the recent Presidential election, and trace
the origin and history of the slavery agitation from the period when
it first became an active element in Federal politics. Without
fatiguing the Senate with tedious details, I may be permitted to
assume, without the fear of successful- contradiction, that whenever
the Federal Government has attempted to decide and control the
slavery question in the newly acquired Territories, regardless of
the wishes of the inhabitants, alienation of feeling, sectional strife,
and discord have ensued; and whenever Congress has refrained
from such interference, harmony and fraternal feeling have been
restored. The whole volume of our nation's history may be confidently appealed to in support of this proposition. The most
memorable instances are the fearful sectional controversies which
brought the Union to the verge of disruption in 1820 and again in
1850. It was the Territorial question in each case which presented
the chief points'of difficulty, because it involved the irritating
question of the relative political power of the two sections. All
the other questions, which entered into and served to increase the
slavery agitation, were deemed of secondary importance, and dwin.
dled into insignificance so soon as the Territorial question was
definitely settled.
. 88 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
T -om the period of the organization of the Federal Government,
under the Constitution in 1789, down to 1820, all the Territorial
governments had been organized on the basis of non-interference
by Congress with the domestic institutions of the people.  During
that period several new Territories were organized, including'ennessee, Louisiana, Missouri, and Alabama. In no one of the Territories did Congress attempt to interfere with the question of
slavery, either to introduce or exclude, protect or prohibit it.
During all this period there was peace and good-will between the
people of all parts of the Union, so far as the question of slavery
was concernedl.
But the first time Congress ever attempted to interfere with and
control that question, regardless of the wishes of the people interested in it, the Union was put in jeopardy, and was only saved
from dissolution by the adoption of the compromise of 1820. In
the famous Missouri coutroversy, the majority of the North demanded that Congress should prohibit slavery forever in all the
territory acquired from France, extending from the State of
Louisiana to the British possessions on the north, and from the
Mississippi to the Rocky Mountains. The South, and the conservative minority of the North, on the contrary, stood firm upon the
ground of non-intervention, denying the right of Congress to touch
the subject. They did not ask Congress to interfere for protection,
nor for any purpose; while they opposed the right and justice of
exclusion.  Thus, each party, with their respective positions dis.
tinctly defined-the one for, the other against Congressional interventioin-maintained its position with desperate persistency, until
disunion seemed inevitable, when a compromise was effected by an
equitable partition of the territory between the two sections on
the line of 36~ 30', prohibiting slavery on the one side and permitting it on the other.
In the adoption of this compromise, each party yielded one halfof its claim for the sake of the Union. It was designed to form
the basis of perpetual peace on the slavery question, by establishing a rule in accordance with which all future controversy would be
avoided. The line of partition was distinctly marked so far as our
territory might extend, and by irresistible inference, the spirit of
the compromise required the extension of the line on the same
parallel whenever we should extend our territorial limits.  The
North and the South-although each was dissatisfied with the terms
of the settlement, each having surrendered one half of its claim
-by common consent agreed to acquiesce in it, and abide by it as
a permanent basis of peace on the slavery question.  It is true,
that there were a few discontented spirits in both sections who
attempted to renew the controversy from time to time; but the
deep Union feeling prevailed, and the masses of the people were
disposed to stand by the settlement as the surest means of averting future difficulties.
189 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
Peace was restored, fraternal feeling returned, and we were a
happy and united people so long as we adhered to, and carried
out in good faith, the Missouri compromise, according to its spirit
as well as its letter. In 1845, when Texas was annexed to the
Union, the policy of an equitable partition, on the line of 36~ 30',
was adhered to, and carried into effect by the extension of the line
so far westward as the new acquisition might reach.  It is true,
there was much diversity of opinion as to the propriety and wis dom of annexing Texas. In the North the measure was opposed
by large numbers upon the distinct ground that it was enlarging
the area of slave territory within the Union; and in the South it
probably received much additional support for the same reason;
but, while it may have been opposed and supported, in some degree,
north and south, from these considerations, no considerable number
in either se(tion objected to it upon the ground that it extended
and carried out the policy of the Missouri compromise. The ob jection was solely to the acquisition of the country, and not to the
application of the Missouri compromise to it, if acquired. No
fair-minded man could deny that every reason that induced the
adoption of the line in 1820, demanded its extension through
Texas, and every new acquisition, whenever we enlarged our territorial possessions in that direction. No man would have been
deemed faithfulrto the obligations of the Missouri compromise at
that day, who was opposed to its application to future acquisitions.
The record shows that Texas was annexed to the Union upon
the express condition that the Missouri compromise should be extended, and made applicable to the country, so far as our new
boundaries might reach. The history of that acquisition will show
that I not only supported the annexation of Texas, but that I urged
the necessity of applying the Missouri compromise to it, for tlh
purpose of extending it through New Mexico and California to the
Pacific ocean, whenever we should acquire those Territories, as a
means of putting an end to the slavery agitation forever.
The annexation of Texas drew after it the war with Mexico, and
the treaty of peace left us in possession of California and New
Mexico.  This large acquisition of new territory was made the
occasion for renewing the Missouri controversy.  The agitation of
1849-50 was a second edition of that of 1819-20. It was stimulated by the same motives, aiming at the same ends, and enforced
by the same arguments. The northern majority invoked the intervention of Congress to prohibit slavery everywhere in the territories of the United States-both sides of the Missouri linesouth as well as north of 36~ 30'. The South, together with a
conservative minority in the North, stood firmly upon the ground
of non-intervention, denying the right of Congress to interfere
with the subject, but avowing a willingness, in the spirit of concession, for the sake of peace and the Union, to adhere to and
carry out the policy of an equitable partition on the line of 36~030'
190 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
to the Pacific ocean, in the same sense in which it was adopted in
1820, and according to the understanding when Texas was annexed
in 1845. Every argument sand reason, every consideration of patri;
otisirc and duty, which induced the adoption of the policy in 1820,
and its application to Texas in 1845, demanded its application to
Californ.ia and New Mexico in 1848.  The peace of the. country,
the fraternal feelings of all its parts, the safety of the ULnioit, all
were involved.
Under these circumstances, as Chairman of the Committee on
Territories, I introduced into the Senate the following proposition,
which was adopted by a vote of thirty-three to twenty-one in the
Senate, but rejected in the House of Representatives. I read from
the Journal, August 10, 1848, page 563:
"On motion by Mr. Douglas to amend the bill, section fourteen, line one,
by inserting after the word' enacted,'  "That the line of 36~ 30' of north latitude, known as the Missouri cornpromise line, as defined by the eighth section of an Act entitled an Act to
authorize the people of the Missouri Territory to form a constitution and
State government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an
equal footing with the original States, and to prohibit slavery in certain Territories, approved March 6th, 1820, be, and the same is hereby declared to
extend to the Pa.cific ocean; and the said eighth section, together with the
compromise therein effected, is hereby revived, and declared to be in full
force and binding, for the future organization of the Territories of the
United States, in the same sense, and with the same understanding, with
which it was originally adopted.
"It was determined in the affirmative-yeas thirty-three, nays twenty-one.
" On motion by Mr. Baldwin, the yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth
of the Senators present, those who voted in the affirmative are:
4" Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Borland, Bright, Butler,
Calhoun, Cameron, Davis of Mississippi, Dickinson, Douglas, Downs, Fitz.
gerald, Foote, Hannegan, Houston, Hunter, Johnson of Maryland, Johnson
of Louisiana, Johnson of Georgia, King, Lewis, Mangum, Mason, Metcalfe,
Pearce, Sebastian, Spruance, Sturgeon, Turney, and Underwood.
"Those who voted in the negative are
"Messrs. Allen, Atherton, Baldwin, Bradbury, Breese, Clark, Corwin, Davis of Massachusetts, Dayton, Dix, Dodge, Felech, Green, Hale, Hamlin,
*Miller, Niles, Phelps, Upham, Walker, and Webster.
"So the proposed amendment was agreed to."
The bill, as amended, was then ordered to be engrossed for a
third reading, by a vote of thirty-three to tweiLty-two, and was read
the third time, and passed on the same day. By the classification
of the votes for my proposition to carry out the Missouri compromise, it will be seen that all the southern Senators, twenty-six
in number, including Mr. Calhoun, voted in the affirmative, and
of the northern Senators, seven voted in the affirmative and twentyone in the negative.  The proposition was rejected in the House
of Representatives by almost a sectional vote, the whole South
Tvoting for it, and a large majority of the North against it.
It was the rejection of that proposition-the repudiation of tho
191 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
policy of an equitable partition of the teritory between the two
sections, on the line of 36~ 30'-which reopened the floodgates of
slavery agitation and deluged the whole country with sectionai
strife and bitterness, until the Union was again brought to the
verge of disruption, before the swelling tide of bitter waters could
be turned back, and passion and prejudice could be made to give
place to reason and patriotism.
Had the Senate's proposition been concurred in by the House
of Representatives; had the policy of an equitable partition been
adhered to; had the Missouri compromise been carried out in good
faith through our newly-acquired territory to the Pacific ocean,
there would have been an end to the slavery agitation forever
For, the line of partition between free and slave territory being
once firmly established and distinctly defined, from the Atlantic to
the Pacific, all new acquisitions, whether on the North or the
South, would have conformed to the adjustment, without exciting
the passions or wounding the sensibilities, or disturbing the harmony of our people. I do not think it would have made any
material difference in respect to the —condition of the new States
to be formed out of such territory, for I have always believed, and
often said, that the existence or non-existence of African slavery
depends more upon the necessities of climate, health, and productions, than upon Congressional and Territorial enactments. It was
in reference to this great truth, that Mr. Webster said that the condition of all the territory acquired from Mexico, so far as the
question of slavery was concerned, was irrevocably fixed and settled
by an irrepealable law-the law of climate and of physical geogra.
phy, and of the formation of the earth.- You might as well attemt
by act of Congress to compel cotton to grow upon the tops ofrthe
Rocky Mountains, and rice upon the summits of the Sierra Nevada,
as to compel slavery to exist, by Congressional enactment, where
neither climate, nor health, nor productions, will render it necessary and self-sustaining. Yet the desire, on the one hand, for the
extension of slavery into regions where it is physically impossible
to sustain it, and, on the other hand, to abolish and exclude it from
those countries where the white man cannot endure the climate
and cultivate the soil, threatens to keep the agitation of this question perpetually in Congress, until the passions of the people shall
become so inflamed that civil war and disunion shall become inevitable. It is the territorial question-whether slavery shall exist
in those vast regions in utter disregard of the wishes and necessities of the people inhabiting them-that is convulsing and dissolv-.
ing the republic; a question in which we have no direct interest,
about which we have very little knowledge, and which the people
of those Territories must and will eventually decide for themselves
and to suit themselves, no matter what Congress may do. But for
this Territorial question there would be very little difficulty in settling the other matters in controversy.  The Abolitionists could
192
I 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
never endanger the peace of the country or the existence of the
Union by the agitation of the slavery question in, the District of
Columbia by itself, or in the dockyards, forts and arsenals in the
'slaveholding States, or upon the fugitive slave law, or upon any
minor issue, or upon them altogether, if the Territorial question
could be finally and irrevocably settled.
1 repeat, it was the repudiation of the policy of the Missouri
compromise, the refusal to apply it to the territory acquired from
Mexico, when offered by me and supported by the whole South, in
August, 1848, which reopened the agitation and revived the Missouri controversy. The compromise of 1820 once repudiated, the
policy of an equitable partition of the territory abandoned, the
proposition to extend it to the Pacific being rejected, and the
original controversy being reopened with increased bitterness, each
party threw itself back upon its original extreme position-the one
demanding its exclusion everywhere, and the other insisting upon
its right to go everywhere in the Territories, regardless of the
wishes of the people inhabiting them. All the arguments, pro and
con, used in 1819-20 were repeated in 1849-50. The question was
the same, and the relative position of the two sections the same.
Such was the condition of things at the opening of the session
of 1849-50, when Mr. Clay resumed his seat in this body.
The purest patriots in the land had become alarmed for the
safety of the republic.  The immortal Clay, whose life had been
devoted to the rights, interests and glory of his country, had retired to the shades of Ashland to prepare for another and better
world. When, in his-retirement,!earing the harsh and discordant
notes of sectional strife and disunion, he consented, at the earnest
solicitation of his countrymen, to resume his seat in the Senate,
the theatre of his great deeds, to see if, by his experience, his wisdom, the renown of his great name, and his strong hold upon the
confidence and affections of the American people, he could not do
something to restore peace to a distracted country. From the
moment of his arrival among us, he became, by common consent
and as a matter of course, the leader of the Union men. His first
idea was to revive and extend Io the Pacific ocean the Missouri
compromise line, with the same understanding and legal effect in
which it had been adopted in 1820, and continued through Texas
in 1845. I was one of his humble followers and trusted friends in
endeavoring to carry out that policy, and, in connection with
others, at his special request, carefully canvassed both houses of
Congress to ascertain whether it was possible to obtain a majority
vote in each house for the measure. We found no difficulty with
the southern Senators and Representatives, and could secure the
co-operation of a minority from the North; but not enough to give
us a majority in both houses. Hence, the Missouri compromise
was abandoned by its friends, NOT front choice, but from INABILIITY
to carry it into effect in good faith.  It was with extreme relUa
193 
194     THE LIFE AN-D SPEECHES Ol
tance that Mr. Clay, and those of us who acted with him and shared
his confidence, were brought to the conclusion that we must aban
don, from inability to carry out, the line of policy which had saved
the Union in 1820, and given peace to the country for many happy
years.
Finding ourselves unable to maintain that policy, we yielded to
a stern necessity, and turned our attention to the discovery of
some other plan by which the existing difficulties could be settled
and future troubles avoided. I need not detail the circumstances
under which Mr. Clay brought forward his plan of adjustment,
which received the sanction of the two Houses of Congress and
the approbation of the American people, and is familiarly known
as the compromise measures of 1850. These measures were designed to accomplish the same results as the act of 1820, but in a
different mode.  The leading feature and chief merit of each, was
to banish the slavery agitation from the halls of Congress and the
arena of Federal politics. The act of 1820, was intended to attain
this end by an equitable partition of the Territories between the
contending sections. The acts of 1850 were designed to attain the
same end, by remitting the whole question of slavery to the decision of the people of the Territories, subject to the limitations of
the Constitution, and let the Federal courts determine the validity
and constitutionality of the Territorial enactments from time to
time, as cases should arise and appeals should be taken to the
Supreme Court of the United States.  The one, proposed to settle
the question by a geographical line and equitable partition; and
the other by the principles of popular sovereignty, in accordance
with the Constitution. The object of both being the same, I supported each in turn, as a means of attaining a desirable end.
After the compromise measures of 1850 had become the law of
the land, those who had opposed their enactment appealed to their
constituents to sustain them in their opposition, and implored
them not to acquiesce in the principles upon which they were
founded, and never to-cease to war upon them until they should be
annulled and effaced from the statute-book. The contest before
the people was fierce and bitter, accompanied sometimes with acts
of violence and intimidation; but, fortunately, Mr. Clay lived long
enough to feel and know that his last great efforts for the peace of
the country and the perpetuity of the Union-the crowning acts
of a brilliant and glorious career in the public service-had met
the approval and received the almost unanimous endorsement of
his grateful countrymen.  The repose which the country was permitted to enjoy for a brief period, proved to be a temporary truce
in the sectional conflict, and not a permanent peace upon the
slavery question. The purpose of re-opening the agitation for a
Congressional prohibition of slavery in all thie Territories whenever
an opportunity or excuse could be had, seemns never to have'bee
abandoned by those who originated the scheme for partisan pur 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
poses in 1819, and were baffled in their designs by the adoption of
the Missouri compromise in 1820; and who renewed the attempt
in 1848, but were again doomed to suffer a mortifying defeat in the
adoption of the compromise measures of 1850. The opportunity
and pretext for renewing the agitation was discovered by those who
had never abandoned the design, when it became necessary, in
1854, to pass the necessary laws for the organization of the T'errin
tories of Kansas and Nebraska. The necessity for the organization
of these Territories, in order to open and protect the routes of
emigration and travel to California and Oregon, could not be denied.  The measure could not be postponed longer without endangering the peace of the frontier settlements, and incurring the
hazards of an Indian war, growing out of the constant collisions
between the emigrants and the Indian tribes through whose country
they were compelled to pass.
Early in December, 1853, Senator Dodge, of Iowa, introduced
a bill for the organization of the Territory of Nebraska, which was
referred to the committee on Territories of which I was chairman.
rThe committee did not volunmteer their services on the occasion.
The bill was referred to us by the vote of the Senate, and our action
was in discharge of a plain duty imposed upon us by an express
command of that body.
The first question which addressed itself to the calm and deliberate consideration of the committee, was-Upon what basis
shall the organization of the Territory be formed? whether upon
the theory of a geographical line and an equitable partition of the
Territory in accordance with the compromise of 1820, which had
been abandoned by its supporters, not from choice, but from our
inability to carry it out, or upon the principle of non intervention
and popular sovereignty, according to the compromise measures
of 1850, which had taken the place of the Missouri compromise?
The committee, upon mature deliberation, and with great unanimity, decided that all future territorial organizations should be
formed upon the principles and model of the compromise measures
of 1850, inasmuch as in the recent Presidential election (1852) both
of the great political parties of the country (Whig and Democratic)
of which the Senate was composed, stood pledged to those measures
as a substitute for the act of 1820; and the committee instructed
me, as their organ, to prepare a report and draft a substitute for
Mr. Dodge's bill in accordance with these views. I will now read
from the record, at the hazard of being somewhat tedious, in order
that the Senate and country may judge with what fidelity I performed this duty.
"Jnuacry 4th, 1854.-Mr. Douglas made the following Report:'The
Committee on Territories, to which was referred a bill for an act to establish
the Territory of Nebraska, have given the same that serious and deliberate
consideration which its great importance demands, and beg leave to report it
back to the Senate, with various amendments, in the form of a substitute for
the bill.                      27
195 
THE    LIFE AND  SPEECHES OF
"'The principal amendments which your committee deem it their duty
to commend  to the favorable action of the Senate, in a special report, are
those in which the principles established by the compromise measures ot
1850, so far as they are applicable to Territorial organizations, are proposed
to be affirmed and carried into practical operation within the limits of the
new Territory.
"' The wisdom of those measures is attested,not less by their salutary and
beneficial effects in allaying sectional agitation and restoring peace and barmony to an irritated and distracted people, than by the cordial and almost
universal approbation with which they have been received and sanctioned by
the whole country.  In the judgment of your committee, those measures were
intended to have a far more comprehensive and enduring effect than the mnere
adjustment of the difficulties arising out of the recent acquisition of f[exicanl territory.  THEY WERE DESIGNED TO ESTABLISH CERTAIN GREAT I RINCIPLES,
WHICH WOULD NOT ONLY FURNISH ADEQUATE REMEDIES FOR EXISTING EVILS,
BUT IN ALL TIME TO COME AVOID THE PERILS OF A SIMILAR AGITATION, BY WITHDRAWING THE QUESTION OF SLAVERY FROM THE HALLS OF CONGRESS AND THE
POLITICAL ARENA, AND COMMITTING IT TO THE ARBITRAMENT OF THOSE WHO WERE
IMMEDIATELY INTERESTED IN AND ALONE RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS CONSEQUENCES.
With the view of conforming their action to what they regard the settled
policy of the government, sanctioned by the approving voice of the American
people, your committee have deemed it their duty to incorporate and perpetuate in their Territorial bills the principles and spirit of those measures."'
After reviewing the provisions of the legislation of 1850, the
committee conclude as follows:
aFrom these provisions it is apparent that the compromise measures of
1850 affirm and rest upon the following propositions.
"First, That all questions pertaining to slavery in the Territories, and in
the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the
people residing therein, by their appropriate representatives, to be chosen by
them for that purpose.
"Second, That'all cases involving title to slaves' and  questions of personal freedom,' are referred to the adjudication of local tribunals, with the
right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
"Third, That the provision of the Constitution of the United States, in
respect to fugitives from service, is to be carried into faithful execution in
all' the organized Territories,' the same as in the States.
"The substitute for the bill which your committee have prepared, and
which is commended to the favorable action of the Senate, proposes to carry
those propositions and printciples intopractical operation, IN THE PRECISE LAN-.
GUAGE OF THE COMPROMISE MEASURES OF 1850."
No sooner was this report and bill printed and laid upon the
tables of Senators, than an address was prepared and issued over
the signatures of those party leaders who had always denounced
"the Missouri compromise as a crime against freedom and a conmpact with infamy," in which this bill was "arraigned as a gross
violation of a sacred pledge," "as a criminal betrayal of precious
rights;" and the report denounced as "a mere invention designed
to cover up from public reprehension meditated bad faith."
The Missouri compromise was "infamous" in their estimation,
so long as it remained upon.the statute book and was carried out
in good faith as a means of preserving the peace of the country
196 
8 T EPHEN A. DO U G LAS.
.nd preventing the slavery agitation in Congress. But it suddenly
became a " sacred pledge," a " solemn compact for the preservation
of precious rights," the moment they had succeeded in preventing
its faithful execution and in causing it to be abandoned when it
ceased to be an impregnable barrier against slavery agitation and
sectional strife. The bill against which the lihue and cry was
raised, and the crusade preached, did not contain a word about the
Missouri compromise, nor in any manner refer to it. It simply
allowed the people of the Territory to legislate for themselves on
all rightful subjects of legislation, and left them free to form and
regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only
to the Constitution.
So far as the Missouri act, or any other statute, might be supposed to conflict with the right of self-government in the Territories, it was, by inference, rendered null and void to that extent,
and for no other purpose. Several weeks afterwards, when a doubt
was suggested whether under the bill as it stood the people of the
Territory would be authorized to exercise this right of self-government upon the slavery question during the existence of the Territorial government, an amendment was adopted, on my motion,
for the sole and avowed purpose of removing that doubt and
sec(uring that right, in accordance with the compromise measures
of 1850, as stated by me and reported in the debates at the time.
The amendment will be found in the fourteenth section of the act,
and is as follows:
"That the Constitution and all laws of the United States which are not
locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory of Nebraska as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth
section of the act, preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union,
approved March 6th, 1820, which, being inconsistent with the principle of nonintervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories, As RECOGNISED BY THE LEGISLATION OF 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void; it being the true intent and
meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor
to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to formn
and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the
Constitution of the United States."
In my opinion this amendment did not change the legal effect
of the bill as reported by the committee. Its object was to render
its meaning certain, by removing all doubts in regard to the right
of the people to exercise the privileges of self-government on tke
slavery question, as well as all others consistent with the Constitution, during their Territorial condition, as well as when they should
become a State. From that day to this, there has been a fierce and
desperate struggle between the supporters and  the opponents of
the Territorial policy inaugurated under the auspices of Mr. Clay
in 1850, and affirmed in the Kansas-Nebraska act in 1854-the one
to maintain, and the other to overthrow the principle of non
intervention and popular sovereignty, as the settled policy of the
191 
'98      THE LI FE AND  SP EEC H ES OF
government in reference to the organization of Territories and the
admission of new States. This sketch of the origin and progress
of the slavery agitation as an element of political power and partisan warfare, covers the entire period from the organization of the
Federal government under the Constitution in 1789 to the present
and is naturally divided into three parts:
FIRST. From 1789, when the Constitution went into, operation,
to 1819-20, when the Missouri controversy arose.  The Territories
were all organized upon the basis of non-intervention by Congress
with the domestic affairs of the people, and especially upon the
question of Afirican slavery. During the whole of this period
domestic tranquility and fraternal feeling prevailed.
SECOND. From 1820, when the Missouri compromise was adopted,
to 1848 and 1850, when it was repudiated and finally abandoned,
all the Territories were organized with reference to the policy of
an equitablb partition between the two sections upon the line of
36~ 30'. During this period there was no serious difficulty upon
the territorial question, so long as the Missouri compromise was
adhered to and carried out in good faith.
THIRD. Frora 1850, when the original doctrine of non-interven
tion, as it prevailed during the first thirty years, was re-established
as the policy of the government in the organization of Territories
and the admission of new States, to the present time, there has
been a constant struggle, except for a short interval, to overthrow
and repudiate the policy and the principles of the compromise
measures of 1850, for the purpose of returning to the old doctrine
of Congressional intervention for the prohibition of slavery in all
the Territories, south as well as north of the Missouri, line, regardless of the wishes and condition of the people inhabiting the
country.
In view of these facts, I feel authorized to reaffirm the proposition with which I commenced my remarks, that whenever the
Federal government has attempted to control the slavery question
in our newly-acquired Territories, alienation of feeling, discord,
and sectional strife have ensued; and whenever Congress has refrained from such interference, peace, harmony, and good-will have
returned. The conclusion I draw from these premises is, that the
slavery question should be banished forever from the halls of Congress and the arena of Federal politics, by an irrepealable Constitutional provision. I have deemed this exposition of the origin
and Progress of the slavery agitation essential to a full comprehension of the difficulties with which we are surrounded, and the
remedies for the evils which threaten the disruption of the republic.  The immediate causes which have precipitated the southern country into revolution, although inseparably connected with,
and flowing from, the slavery agitation whose history I have portrayed, are to be found in the result of the recent Presidential
election. I hold that the election of any man, no-matter who, by 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
the American people, according to the Constitution, furnishes no
cause, no justification, for the dissolution of the Union. But we
cannot close our eyes to the fact that the Southern people have
received the result of that election as furnishing conclusive evidence that the dominant party of the North, which is soon to take
possession of the Federal government under that election, are
determined to invade and destroy their Constitutional rights.
Believing that their domestic institutions, their hearthstones and
their family altars are to be assailed, at least by indirect means,
and that the Federal government is to be used for the inauguration
of a line of policv which shall have for its object the ultimate extinction of slavery in all the States. old as well as new, South as
well as North, the southern people are prepared to rush wildly,
madly, as I think, into revolution, disunion, war, and defy the consequences, whatever they may be, rather than to wait'for the
development of events, or submit tamely to what they think is a
fatal blow impending over them and over all they hold dear on
earth. It matters not so far as we and the peace of the country
and the fate of the Union are concerned, whether these apprehensions of the Southern people are real or imaginary, whether they
are well founded or wholly without foundation, so long as they
believe them and are determined to act upon them. The Senator
from Ohio (Mr. Wade) whose speech was received with so much
favor by his political friends the other day, referred to these serious
apprehensions, and acknowledged his belief that the Southern
people were laboring under the conviction that they were well
founded. He was kind enough to add that he did not blame the
Southern people much for what they were doing under this fatal
misapprehension, but cast the whole blame upon the Northern
Democracy; and referred especially to his colleague and myself,
for having misrepresented and falsified the purposes and policy of
the Republican party, and for having made the Southern people
believe our misrepresentations! He does not blame the Southern
people for acting on their honest convictions in resorting to revolution to avert an impending but imaginary calamity. No, he
does not blame them, because they believe in the existence of the
danger; yet he will do no act to undeceive them; will take no step
to relieve their painful apprehensions; and will furnish no guarantees, no security, against the dangers which they believe to exist,
and the existence of which he denies. But, on the contrary, he
demands unconditional submission, threatens war, and talks about
armies, navies, and military force for the purpose of preserving the
Union and enforcing the laws!  I submit whether this mode of
treating the question is not calculated to confirm the worst apprehensions of the Southern people and force them into the most
extreme measures of resistance.
I regret that the Senator from Ohio, or any other Senator,
shouli have deemed it consistent with his duty, under present cir
195 
200    THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
cumstanrces, to introduce partisan politics, and attempt to mandfacture partisan capital out of a question involving the peace aid
safety of the country. I repeat what I have said on another occasion, that, if 1 know myself, my action will be influenced by no
partisan considerations until we shall have rescued the country
from the perils which environ it. But since the Senator has attempted to throw the whole responsibility of the present'difficu] t.ies
upon the northern Democracy, and has charged us witl misrspresenting and falsifying the purposes and policy of the Republican
party, and thereby deceiving the Southern people, I feel called
upon to repel the charge, and show that it is without a shadow of
foundation.
No man living would rejoice more than myself in the conviction,
if I could only be convinced of the fact, that I have misunderstood
and consequently misrepresented, the policy and designs of the
Republican party. Produce the evidence and convince me of my
error, and I will take more pleasure in making the correction and
repairing the injustice, than I ever have taken in denouncing what
I believed to be an unjust and ruinous policy.
IWVith the view of ascertaining whether I have misapprehended
or misrepresented the policy and purposes of the Republican party,
I will now enquire of the Senator, and yield the floor for an answer,
whether it is not the policy of his party to confine slavery within
its present limits by the action of the Federal government?
Whether they do not intend to abolish and prohibit slavery by act
of Congress, notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme Court
to the contrary, in all the Territories we now possess or may hereafter acquire? In short, I will give the Senator an opportunity
now to say  Mr. WADE.-Mr. President  Mr. DOUGLAS.-One other question, and I will give way.
Mr. WADE.-Very well.
Mr. DOUGLAS.-I will give the Senator an opportunity of saying
now whether it is not the policy of his party to exert all the powers
of the Federal government under the Constitution, according to
their interpretation of the instrument, to restrain and cripple the
institution of slavery, with a view to its ultimate extinction in all
the States old as well as new, South as well as North?
Are not these the views and purposes of the party, as proclaimed by their leaders, and understood by the people, in speeches,
addresses, sermons, newspapers, and public meetings? Now, I will
hear his answer.
Mr. WADE.-Mr. President, all these questions are most pertinently answered in the speech the Senator is professing to answer.
I have nothing to add to it. If he will read my speech, he will find
my sentiments upon all these questions.
Mr. DoUGLAS.-Mr. President, I did not expect an unequivocal
answer. I, know too well that the Senator will not deny that each 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
of these interrogatories do express his individual policy and the
policy of the Republican party as he understands it.  I should
iot have propounded the interrogatories to him if he had not accused me and the Northern Democracy of having misrepresented
the policy of the Republican party, and with having deceived the
Southern people by such misrepresentations. The most obnoxious
sentiments I ever attributed to the Republican party, and that not
in the South, but in Northern Illinois-and in the strongholds of
Abolitionism, was that they intended to exercise the powers of the
Federal government with a view to the ultimate extinction of
slavery in the Southern States. I have expressed ny belief, and
would be glad to be corrected if I am in error, that it is the policy
of that party to exclude slavery from all the Territories we now
possess or may acquire, with a view of surrounding the slave State
with a cordon of abolition States, and thus confine the institution
within such narrow limits, that when the number increases beyond
the capacity of the soil to raise food for their subsistence, the institution must end in starvation, colonization, or servile insurrection. I have often exposed the enormities of this policy, and
appealed to the people of Illinois to know whether this mode of
getting rid of the evils of slavery could be justified in the name
of civilization, humanity, and Christianity? I have often used
these arguments in the strongest abolition portions of the North,
but never in the South. The truth is, I have always been very
mild and gentle upon the Republicans when addressing a Southern
audience; for it seemed ungenerous to say behind their backs, and
where they dare not go to reply to me, those things which I was
in the habit of saying to their faces and in the presence of their
leaders where they were in the majority.
But inasmuch as I do not get a direct answer from the Senator
who makes this charge against the northern Democracy, as to the
purposes of that party to use the power of the Federal Government under their construction of the Constitution, with a view to
the ultimate extinction of slavery in the States, I will turn to the
record of their President elect, and see what he says on that
subject.  The Republicans have gone to the trouble to collect and
publish in pamphlet form, under the sanction of Mr. Lincoln, the
debates which took place between him and myself in the senatorial
canvass of 1858. It may not be improper here to remark that
this publication is unfair towards me, for the reason that Mr.
Lincoln personally revised and corrected his own speeches, without
giving me on opportunity to correct the numerous errors in mine.
Inasmuch as the publication is made under the sanction of Mr.
Lincoln himself, accompanied by a letter from him that he has
revised the speeches by verbal corrections, and thereby approved
them, it becomes important to show what his views are, since he
is in the daily habit of referring to those speeches for his present
opinions.
201
I 
.ETHE  LIFE AND SPEECHES Or
Mr. Lincoln was nominated for United States Senatoi by 2
Republican State Convention at Springfield in June, 1858. Anticipating the nomination, he had carefully prepared a wi'tten
speech, which he delivered on the occasion, and which, by order of
the convention, was published among the proceedings as containing
the platform of principles upon which the canvass wis to be conducted. More importance is due to this speech' than to those delivered under the excitement of debate in joint discussions by the
exigencies of the contest. The first few paragraphs which I will
now read, may be taken as a fair statement of his opinions and
feelings upon the slavery question.  Mr. Lincoln said:
"Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention, if we could
first know where we are tending, we could better judge what to do
and how to do it. 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 slave agitation. Under the operation of that
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 Union to be
dissolved-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 opponets 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 alike become lawful in all the States,
old as well as new, North as well as South."
There you are told by the President elect that this Union cannot
permanently endure divided into free and slave States; that these
States must all become free or all slave, all become one thing
or all the other; that this agitation will never cease until the
opponents of slavery have restrained its expansion, and have placed
it where the public mind will be satisfied that it will be in the
course of ultimate extinction. Mark the language:
"Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread
of it?"
We are now told that the object of the Republican party is to
prevent the extension of slavery. What did Mr. Lincoln say? That
the opponents of slavery must first prevent the further spread of it.
But that is not all.  What else must they do?
"And place it where the public mind can rest in the belief that
it is in the course of ultimate extinction."
The ultimate extinction of slavery, of which Mr. Lincoln was
then speaking,_related to the States of this Unionj. He had reference to the Southern States of this Confederacy; for in the next
sentence, he says that the States must all become one thing, or all
the other-," old as well as new, North as well as South'"-showing
202 
BTEPHEN A. DOUGLtAS.
that ne meant that the policy of the Republican party was to keep
up this agitation in the Federal Government until slavery in the
States was placed in the process of ultimate extinction. Now, sir,
when the Republican committee have published an edition of Mr.
Linicoln's speeches containing sentiments like these, and circulating
it as a campaign document, is it surprising that the people of the
South should suppose that he was in earnest, and intended to carry
out the policy which he had announced?
I regret the necessity which has made it my duty to reproduce
these dangerous and revolutionary opinions of the President elect.
Nlo consideration could have induced me to have done so but the
attempt of his friends to denounce the policy which Mr. Lincoln
has boldly advocated, as gross calumnies upon the Republican
party, and as base inventions by the northern Democracy, to excite
rebellion to the southern country,  I should like to find one
Senator on that side of the Chamber, in the confidence of the
President elect, who will have the hardihoood to deny that Mr.
Lincoln stands pledged by his public speeches, to which he now
refers constantly as containing his present opinions, to carry out
the policy indicated in the speech from which I have read. I take
great pleasure in saying, however, that I do not believe the rights
of the South-will materially suffer under the administration of Mr.
Lincoln. I repeat what I have said on another occasion, that
neither he nor his party will have the power to do any act prejudicial to Southern rights and interests, if the Union shall be preserved, and the Southern States shall retain a full delegation in
both IHouses of Congress. With a majority against them in this
body, and in the House of Representatives, they can do no act,
except to enforce the laws, without the consent of those to whom
the South has confided her interests, and even his appointments
for that purpose are subject to our advice and confirmation.
Besides, I still indulge the hope that when Mr. Lincoln shall
assume the high responsibilities which will soon devolve upon him,
fie will be fully impressed with the necessity of sinking the politician in the statesmen, the partisan in the patriot, and regard the
obligations which he owes to his country as paramount to those of
his party. In view of these considerations, I had indulged the
fond hope that the people of the Southern States would have been
content to have remained in the Union and defend their rights under
the Constitution, instead of rushing madly into revolution and disunion, as a refuge from apprehended dangers which may not exist.
But this apprehension has become wide spread and deep seated
in the Southern people. It has taken possession of the Southern
mind, sunk deep in the Southern heart, and filled them with the
conviction that their firesides, their family altars, and their domestic institutions are to be ruthlessly assailed through the machinery
of the Federal Government. The Senator from Ohio says he does
not blame you Southern Senators, nor the southern people, for
' 203 
204    THE LIFPE AND SPEECHES Or
believing those things; and yet, instead of doing those acts which
will relieve your apprehensions and render it impossible that your
rights should be invaded by Federal power under any administrat
tion, he threatens you with war, armies, military force, under pre.
text of enforcing the laws, and preserving the Union.  We are
told that the authority of Government must be vindicated; that
the Union must be preserved; that rebellion must be put down;
that insurrection must be suppressed, and the laws must be
enforced. I agree to all this. I am in favor of doing all these
things according to the Constitution and laws.  No man shall go
further than I to maintain the just authority of the Government,
to preserve the Union, to put down rebellion, to suppress insurrection, and enforce the laws. I would use all the powers conferred
by the Constitution for this purpose.  But, in the perforimance of
these important and delicate duties, it must be borne in mind that
those powers only must be used, and such measures employed, as
are authorized by the Constitution and laws. Things should be
called by their right names; and facts, whose existence can no
longer be denied, should be acknowledged.
Insurrections and rebellions, although unlawful and criminal,
frequently become successful revolutions. The strongest governments and proudest monarchs on earth, have often been reduced
to the humiliating necessity of recognizing the existence of governments de facto, although not de jure, in their revolted States and
Provinces, when rebellion has ripened into successful revolution
and the national authorities have been expelled from their limits.
In such cases the right to regain possession and exact obedience to
the laws remains; but the exercise of that right is war, and must
be governed by the laws of war. Such was the relative position
of Great Britain and the American colonies for seven years after
the declaration of independence. The rebellion had progressed
and matured into revolution, with a government de facto, and an
army and navy to defend it. Great Britain, regarding the complaints of the colonies unfounded, refused to yield to their demanlds,
and proceeded to reduce them to obedience-not by the enforcement of the laws, but by military force, armies and navies, according to the rules and laws of war. Captives taken in battle with
arms in their hands fighting against Great Britain, were not executed as traitors, but held as prisoners of war, and exchanged
according to the usages of civilized nations. The laws of nations,
the principles of humanity, of civilization and Christianity, demanded that the government de facto should be acknowledged and
treated as such. While the right to prosecute war for the purpose
of reducing the revolted provinces to obedience still remained; yet
:t was a military remedy, and could only be exercised according to
the established principles of war.
It is said that after one of the earliest engagements the British
general threatened to execute as traitors all the prisoners he had 
BTEPHEY A. DOUGLAB.
taken in battle; and that General Washington replied, that he too,
had taken some prisoners, and would shoot two for one until the
British general should respect-the laws of war, and treat his prison.
ers accordingly. May Divine Providence, in his infinite wisdom
and mercy, save our country from the humiliation and calamities
which now seem almost inevitable! South Carolina has already
declared her independence of the United States-has expelled the
Federal authorities from her limits, and established a government
de facto, with a military force to sustain it. The revolution is
complete, there being no man within her limits who denies the
authority of the government or acknowledges allegiance to that
of the United States.  There is every reason to believe that seven
other States will soon follow her example; and much ground to
apprehend that the other slave-holding States will follow them.
How are we going to prevent an alliance between these seceding
States, by which they may establish a Federal government, at least
de facto, for themselves? If they shall do so, and expel the authorities of the United States from their limits, as South Carolina
has done, and others are about to do, so that there shall be no
human being within their boundaries who acknowledge allegiance
to the United States, how are we going to enforce the laws?
Armies and navies can make war, but cannot enforce laws in this
country. The laws can be enforced only by the civil authorities,
assisted by the military as a posse comitatus when resisted in executing judicial process. Who is to issue the judicial process in a
State where there is no judge, no court, no judicial functionary?
Who is to perform the duties of marshal in executing the process
where no man will or dare accept office? Who are to serve on
juries while every citizen is particeps criminis with the accused?
How are you going to comply with the Constitution in respect to
a jury-trial where there are no men qualified to serve on the jury?
I agree that the laws should be enforced. I hold that our government is clothed with the power and duty of using all the means
necessary to the enforcement of the laws, according to the Constitution and laws. The President is sworn to the faithful performance of this duty. I do not propose to inquire, at this time, how
far and with what fidelity the President has performed that duty.
His conduct and duty in this regard, including acts of commission
and omission, while the rebellion was in its incipient stages, and
when confined to a few individuals, present a very different question from that which we are now discussing, after the revolution
ihas become complete, and the Federal authorities have been expelled and the government de facto put into practical operation
and in the unrestrained and uniiresisted exercise of all the powers,
and functions of government, local and national.
But we are told that secession is wrong, and that South Carolina
had no right to secede.  I agree that it is wrong, unlawful, unconstitutional, criminal.  In my opinion, South Carolina had no
205 
206     THE  LIIFE AND SPEECHESB  OP
right to secede; but she has done it. She has declared her inde pendence of us, effaced the last vestige of our civil authority,
established a foreign government, and is now engaged in the pre
liminary steps to open diplomatic intercourse with the great
powers of the world. What next? If her act was illegal, uncon.
stitutional and wrong, have we no remedy? Unquestionably we
have the right to use all the power and force necessary to regain
possession of that portion of the United States, in order that we
may again enforce our Constitution and laws upon the inhabitants
We can enforce our laws in those States, Territories and places
only which are within our possession. It often happens that the
territorial rights of a country extend beyond the limits of their
actual possessions That is our case at present in respect to South
Carolina. Our right of jurisdiction over that State for Federal
purposes, according to the Constitution, has not been destroyed or
impaired by the ordinance of secession, or any act of the conven tion, or of the de facto government. The right remains; but the
possession is lost for the time being. " iow shall we regain the
possession?" is the pertinent inquiry. It may be done by arms,
or by a peaceable adjustment of the matters in controversy.
Are we prepared for W7ar? I do not mean that kind of preparation which consists of armies and navies, and supplies and munitions of war; but are we prepared IN OUR HEARTS for war with
our own brethren and kindred? I confess I am not. While I affirm
that the Constitution is, and was intended to be, a bond of perpetual Union; while I can do no act and utter no word that will acknowledge or countenance the right of secession; while I affirm
the right and the duty of the Federal Government to use all legitimate means to enforce the laws, put down rebellion, and suppress
insurrection, I will not meditate war, nor tolerate the idea, until
effort at peaceful adjustment shall have been exhausted, and the last
ray of hope shall have deserted the patriot's heart. Then, and not
till then, will I consider and determine what course my duty to my
country may require me to pursue in such an emergency. In my
opinion, war is disunion, certain, inevitable, irrevocable. I am for
peace to save the Uinion.
I have said that I cannot recognize nor countenance the right of
secession.  Illinois situated in the interior of the continent, can
never acknowledge the right of the States bordering on the seas
to withdraw from the Union at pleasure, and from alliances among
themselves and with other countries, by which we shall be excluded from all access to the ocean, from all intercourse or commerce
with foreign nations. We can never consent to be shut up within
the circle of a Chinese wall, erected and controlled by others without our permission; or to any other system of isolation by which
we shall be deprived of any communication with the rest of the civilized world. Those States which are situated in the interior of the
Continent can never assent to any such doctrine.  Our rights, our 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
interests, our safety, our existence as a free people, forbid it! The
Northwester;i States were ceded to the United States before the
Constitution was made, on condition of perpetual union with the
other States. The Territories were organized, settlers invited. lands
purchased, and homes made, on the pledge of your plighted faith
of perpetual Union.
When there were bat two hundred thousand inhabitants scattered over that vast region, the navigation of the Mississippi was
deemed icy Mr. Jefferson so important and essential to their interests and prosperity, that he did not hesitate to declare that if
Spain or France insisted upon retaining possession of the mouth
of that river, it would become the duty of theUInited States to
take it by arms, if they failed to acquire it b-y treaty.  If the possession of that river, with jurisdiction over its mouth and channel,
was indispensable to the people of the Northwest when we had
two hundred thousand inhabitants, is it reasonable to suppose that
we will voluntarily surrender it now when we have ten millions of
people? Louisiana was not purchased for the exclusive benefit of
the few Spanish and French residents in the territory, nor for those
who might become residents. These considerations did not enter
into the negotiations and found no inducements to the acquisition.
Louisiana was purchased with the National treasure, for the
common benefit of the whole Union in general, and for the safety,
convenience, and prosperity of the Northwest in particular. We
paid $15.000.000 for the territory. We have expended much more
than that sum in the extinguishment of Indian titles, the removal
of Indians, the survey of lands, the erection of custom hocus(es,
light houses, forts, and arsenals. We admitted the inhabitants into
the Union on an equal footing with ourselves. Now we are called
upon to acknowledge the moral and Constitutional right of those
people to dissolve the Union without the consent of the otliher
States; to seize the forts, arsenals, and other public property, and
appropriate them to their own use; to take possession of the Mississippi river, and exercise jurisdiction over the same;, and to reannex herself to France, or remain an independent nation, or to
form alliances with such other Powers as she, in the plenitude of her
sovereign will and pleasure, may see fit. If this thing is to' be
done-.peaceably if you can, and forcibly if you must-all I propose to say at this time is, that you cannot expect us of ihe
Northwest to yield our assent to it, nor to acknowledge your
right to do it, or the propriety and justice of the act.
T'he respectful attention with which my friend from Florida (Mr.
Yulee) is listening to me, reminds me that his State furnishes an
apt illustration of this modern doctrine of secession.  We paid five
million for the territory. We spent marvellous sums in subduing
the Indians, extinguishing Indian titles, removal of Indians beyond
her borders, surveying the lands, building light-houses, navy yards,
forts and arsenals, with untold millions for the never-ending Florida
207 
208     T HE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
claims   I assure my friend that I do not refer to these things ii
an off'(nsive sense, for he knows how much respect I have for him,
and has not forgotton my efforts in the House many years ago, to
secure the admission of his State into the Union, ir order that he
might represent her, as he has since done with so much ability
and fidelity in this body.  But I will say that it never occurred to
me at that time that the State whose admission into the Union I
was advocating would be one of the first to join in a scheme to
break up the Union. I submit it to himln whether it is not an ex
traordinary spectacle to see that State which has cost us so much
blood and treasure, turn her back on the Union which has fostered
and protected her when she was too feeble to protect herself, and
seize the light houses, navy yards, forts and arsenals, which
although within her boundaries, were erected with National fmds,
for the benefit and defence of the whole Union.
I do not think I can find a more striking illustration of this doc trine of secession than was -suggested to my mind when reading
the President's last annual message.  My attention was first ar rested by the remarkable passage, that the Federal Government
had no power to coerce a State back into the Union if she did
secede; and my admiration was unbounded when I found a few lines
afterwards. a recommendation to appropriate money to purchase
the island of Cuba. It occurred to me instantly, what a brilliant
achievement it would be to pay Spain $300,000,000 for Cuba, and
immediately admit the island into the Union as a State, and let her
secede and re-annex herself to Spain the next day, when the
Spanish Queen would be ready to sell the island again for half
price, according to the gullibility of the purchaser! (Laughter.)
During my service in Congress it was one of my pleasant duties
to take an active part in the annexation of Texas; and at a subsequent session to write and introduce the bill, which made Texas
one of the States of the Union. Out of that annexation grew the
war with Mexico, in which we expended $100,000,000 and were left
to mourn the loss of about ten thousand as gallant mnen as ever
died upon a battle field for the honor and glory of their Country!
We have since spent millions of money to protect Texas against
her own indians, to establish forts and fortifications to protect her
frontier settlements and to defend her against the assaults of all
enemies until she became strong enough to protect herself. We
are now called upon to acknowledge that Texas has a moral, just,
and constitutional right to rescind the act of admission into the
Union; repudiate her ratification of the resolutions of annexation;
seize the forte and public buildings which were constructed with
our money; appropriate the same to her own use, and leave us to
pay $100,000,000 and to mourn the death of the brave men who
sacrificed their lives in defending the integrity of her soil.  In the
name of Hardin, and Bissell, and Harris, and the seven thousand
gallant spirits from Illinois, who fought bravely upon every battle 
STEPHEN  A. -DOUGLAS.
field of Mexico, I protest against the right of Texas to separate
herself from this Union without our consent.
MIR. HIEMPHILL. Mr. President. If the Senator from Illinois
will allow me, I will enquire whether there were no other causes
assigned by the United States for the war with Mexico than simply
the defence of Texas?
MR. DOUGLAS. I will answer the question. We undoubtedly
did assign other acts as causes for war, which had existed for years,
if we had chosen to treat them so; hut we did not go to war for
any other cause than the annexation of Texas. as is shown in the
act of Congress recognizing the existence of war with Mexico, in
which i is declared that "war exists by the act of the Republic
of Mexico." The sole cause of grievance which Mexico had
against us, and for which she commenced the war, was our annexation of Texas. Hence, none can deny that the Mexican war was
solely and exclusively the result of the annexation of Texas.
MR. HEMPRILL.  I will enquire further, whether  the United
States, paid anything to Texas for the annexation of her three
himdred and seventy thousand square miles of territory; whether
the United States has not got $500,000,000 by the acquisition of
California through that war with Mexico?
MR. DOUGLAS. Sir, we did not pay anything for bringing Texas
into the Union; for we did not get any of her lands, except that
we purchased some poor lands from her afterwards, which she did
not own, and paid her $10,000,000 for them. (Laughter.) But we
did spend blood and treasure in the acquisition and subsequent defence of Texas.
Now sir. I will answer his question in respect to California.
The treaty of peace brought California and New Mexico into the
Union. Our people moved there, took possession of the lands,
settled up the country, and erected a State of which the United
States have a right to be proud. We have expended millions upon
millions for fortifications in California, and for navy-yards, and
mints, and public buildings, and land surveys, and feeding the Indians, and protecting her people. I believe the public land sales
do not amount-to more than one-tenth of the cost of surveys, according to the returns that have been made. It is true that the
people of California have dug a large amount of gold (principally
out of the lands belonging to the United States,) and sold it to us;
but I am not aware that we are under any more obligations to themn
for selling it to us, than they are to us for buying it of them.  The
people of Texas, during the same time, have probably made ctt-oni
and agricultural productions to a much larger value, and sold some
of it to New England, and some to old England. I suppose the
benefits of the bargain were reciprocal, and the one was under
just as much obligation as the other for the mutual benefits of the
sale and purchase.
The question remains, whether, after paying $15.000.000 for
200 
210   ~ TIE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
California-as the Senator from Texas has called my attention to
that State-and perhaps as much more in protecting and defending her, she has any moral, or constitutional right to annul the conmpact between her and the Union. and form alliances with foreign
Powers, and leave us to pay the cost and expenses? I cannot recognize any such doctrine. In my opinion the Constitution was intended to be a bond of perpetual Union. It begins with the declaration in the preamble, that it is made in order "to form a more
perfect Union," and every section and paragraph in the instrument
implies perpetuity.  It was intended to last for ever, and was so
understood when ratified by the people of the several States.
New York and Virginia have been referred to as having ratified
with the reserved right to withdraw o0 secede at pleasure.  This
is a mistake.  The correspondence between General Hamilton and
Mr. Madison at the time is conclusive on this point. After Vii.
ginia had ratified the Constitution, General Hamilton, who was a
member of the New York convention, wrote to Mr. Madison that
New York would probably ratify the Constitution for a term of
years, and reserve the right to withdraw after that time, if certain
amendments were not sooner adopted; to which Mr. Madison replied that such a ratification would not make New York a member
of the Union; that the ratification must be unconditional, in toto
and forever, or not at all; that the same question was considered
at Richmond and abandoned when Virginia ratified the Constitution. Hence, the declaration of Virginia and New York, that they
had not surrendered the right to resume the delegated powers,
must be assumed as referring to the right of Revolution, which
nobody acknowledges more freely than I do, and not to the right
of secession.
The Constitution being made as a bond of perpetual Union; its
framers proceeded to provide against the necessity of revolution,
by prescribing the mode in which it might be amended; so that
if, in the course of time, the condition of the country should so
change as to require a different fundamental law, amendments
might be made peaceably, in the manner prescribed in the instrument; and thus avoid the necessity of ever resorting to revolution. Having provided for a perpetual Union, and for amendments
to the Constitution, they next inserted a clause for admitting new
States, but no provision for the withdrawal of any of the other
States. I will not argue the question of the right ofsecession any
further than to enter my protest against the whole doctrine. I
deny that there is any foundation for it in the Constitution, in
the nature of the compact, in the principles of the Government,
or in justice, or in good faith. 
Nor do I sympathize at all ill the apprehensions and misgivings I
hear expressed about coercion. We are told that inasmuch as our
Government is founded on the will of the people, or the consent of
the governed, therefere coercion is incompatible with republicanism 
STEP HE N A. DOUG LAS, 
Sir. the word Government means coercion. There can be no Gov.
ernment without coercion. Coercion is the vital principle upon
which all Governments rest. Withdraw the right of coercion,
and you dissolve your Government. If every man would do his
duty and respect the rights of his neighbors voluntarily, there
would be no necessity for any Government on earth. The necessity of Government is found to consist in the fact that some men
will no. do right unless coerced to do so.  The object of all Government is to coerce and compel every man to do his duty, who
would not otherwise perform it. Hlence I do not subscribe at all
to this doctrine that coercion is not to be used in a free Government. It must be used in all Governments, no matter what their
form or what their principles.
But coercion must be always used in the mode prescribed in the
Constitution and laws. I hold that the Federal Government is,
and ought to be, clothed with the power and duty to use all the
means necessary to coerce obedience to all laws made in pursuance of the Constitution. But the proposition to subvert the de
facto Government of South Carolina, and to reduce the people of
that State into subjection to our Federal authority, no longer involves the question of enforcing the laws in a country within our
possession; but it does involve the question whether we will make
war on a State which has withdrawn her allegiance and expelled
our authorities,-with a view of subjecting her to our possession for
the purpose of enforcing our laws within her limits.
We are bound, by the usages of nations, by the laws of civilization, by the uniform practice of our own Government to acknowledge the existence of a Government de facto, so long as it maintains its undivided authority. When Louis Philippe fled from the
throne of France, Lamartine suddenly one morning found himself
the head of a provisional Government; I believe it was but three
days until the American Minister recognized the Government de
facto. Texas was a Government de facto, not recognized by
Mexico, when we annexed her; not recognized by Spain, when
Texas revolted. The laws of nations recognize Governments de
facto where they exercise and maintain undivided sway, leaving the
question of their authority de lure to be determined by the people
interested in the Government.   Now, as a man who loves the
Union, and desires to see it maintained forever, and to see the laws
enforced, and rebellion put down, and insurrection repressed and
order maintained, I desire to know of my Union loving friends on
the other side of the Chamber how they intend to enforce the laws
in the seceding states, except by making war, conquering them first,
and administering the laws in them afterwards.
In my opinion, we have reached a point where disunion is inevitable, unless some compromise. founded on neutral concession, can
be made. I prefer compromise to war. I prefer concession to a
dissolution of the Union. When I avowed myself in favor of
28
211 
212       TH E  L I FE  AND  S P EE CIIE S OF
compromise, I do not mean that one side should give up all that it
has claimed, nor that the other side should give up everything for
which it has contended.  Nor do I ask any man to come to my
standard; but I simply say that I will meet any one half way who is
willing to preserve the peace of the country, and save the Union
from disruption upon principles of compromise and concession.
In my judgement no system of compromise, can be effectual and
permanent which does not banish the slavery question from the
Halls of Congress and the arena of Federal politics, by irrepealable
constitutional provision. We have tried compromise by law, coinpromise by act of Congress, and now we are engaged in the small
business of crimination and recrimination, as to who is responsible
for not having lived up to them in good faith, and for having
broken faith. I want whatever compromise is agreed to, placed
beyond the reach of party politics and partisan policy, by being
made irrevocable in the Constitution itself, so that every man that
holds office will be bound by his oath to support it.
There are several modes in which this irritating question may
be withdrawn from Congress, peace restored, the rights of States
maintained, and the Union rendered secure. One of them-one
to which I can cordially consent-has been presented by the venerable Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. Crittenden.)  The journal of
the committeew  thirteen shows that I voted for it in committee.
I am prepared to vote for it again. I shall not occupy time now
in discussing the question whether my vote to make a partition
between the two sections, instead of referring the question to the
people, will be consistent with my previous record or not.  The
country has no very great interest in my consistency. The preservation of this Union, the integrity of this Republic, is of more
importance than party platforms, or individual records. Hence I
have no hesitation in saying to Senators on all sides of this Cham.
ber, that I am prepared to act on this question with reference to
the present exigencies of the case, as if I had never given a vote,
or uttered a word, or had an opinion upon the subject.
Why cannot you Republicans accede to the re-establishment and
extension of the Missouri Compromise line.   You have sung
peans enough in its praise, and uttered imprecations and curses
enough upon my head for its repeal, one would think, to justify you
now in claiming a triumph by its re-establishmant. If you are will.
ilig to give up your party feelings-to sink the partisan in the patriot
— and help me to reestablish and extend that line, as a perpetual
bond of peace between the North and the South, I will promise
you never to remind you in future of your denunciations of the
Missouri Compromise, so long as I was supporting it, and of your
praises of the same measure when we removed it from the statute
book, after you had caused it to be abandoned, by rendering it im
possible for us to carry it out. I seek no partisan advantage; I
desire no personal triumph. I am willing to let by-gones be by 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
gones with every nman who in this exigency, will show by his vote
that he loves his country more than his party.
I presented to the committee of thirteen and also introduced
into the Senate, another plan by which the slavery question may
lhe taken out of Congress. and the peace of the country maintained.
It is, that Congress shall make no law on the subject of slavery in
the'I'erritories, and that the existing Status of each Territory on
tht subject, as it now stands by law, shall remain unchanged
iuntil it has fifty thousand inhabitants, when it shall have the right
of self Government as to its domestic policy; but with only a
i)elegate in each House of Congress until it has the population required by the Federal ratio for a Representative in Congress, when
it shall be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the
original States. I put the number of the inhabitants at fifty thou
sand before the people of the Territory shall change the Status in
regard to slavery as a fair compromise between the conflicting
opinions on this subject. The two extremes, North and South,
unite in condemning the doctrine of popular sovereignty'in the Ter.
ritories upon the ground that the first few settlers ought not to be
permitted to decide so important a question for those who are to
come after them. I have never considered that objection well
taken, for the reason that no Territory should be organized with
the right to elect a Legislature and make its own laws upon all
rightful subjects of legislation, until it contains a sufficient popula.
tion to constitute a political community; and whenever Congress
should decide that there were a sufficient population, capable of
self government, by organizing the Territory, to govern themselves upon all other subjects, I could never perceive any good
reason why the same political community should not be permitted
to decide the slavery question for themnselves.
But since we are now trying to compromise our difficulties upon
the basis of mutual concessions, I propose to meet both extremes
half way, by fixing the number at fifty thousand. This number,
certainly, ought to be satisfactory to those States which have been
admitted into the Union with less than fifty thousand inhabitants.
Oregon, Florida, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Ohio, Indiana
and Illinois, were each admitted into the Union I believe, with
less than that number of inhabitants.  Surely the Senators and
Representatives from those States do not doubt that fifty thousand people were enough to constitute a political community,
capable of deciding the slavery question for themselves. I now
invite attention to the next proposition.
In order to allay all apprehension, North or South, that Terri.
tory would be acquired in the future for sectional or partisan purposes, by adding a large number of free States on the North, or
slave States on the South, with the view of giving the one section
or the other a dangerous political ascendency, I have inserted the
provision that "no more territory shall be acquired by the United
213 
2I4     THE LIFE- AND  SPEECHES OF
States except by treaty on the concurrent vote of wo mtnirds,ni
each House of Congress."  If this provision should be incorporated into the Constitution, it would be impossible for either section to
annex any territory without the concurrence of a large portion of
the other section; and hence there need be no apprehension that
any territory would be hereafter acquired for any other than such)
National considerations as would commend the subject to the ap.
probation of both sections.
I have also inserted a provision confirming the right of suffrage
and of holding office to white men, excluding the African race. Ihave
also inserted a provision for the colonization of free negroes from
such States as may desire to have them removed, to districts of
country, to be acquired in Africa and South America. In addition
to these I have adopted the various provisions contained in theproposition of the Senator from Kentucky, in reference to fugitive
slaves, the abolition of slavery in the forts, arsenals, and dockyards in the slave States and in the District of Columbia, and the
other provisions for the safety of the South. I believe this to be
a fair basis of amicable adjustment.  If you of the Republicanside are not willing to accept this, nor the proposition of the Senator from Kentucky, (MR. CRITTENDEN,) pray tell us what you are
willing to do? I address the enquiry to the Republicans alone, for
the reason that in the committee of thirteen, a few days ago, every
member from the South, including those from the Cotton States,
(Messrs. TOOMBS and DAVIS,) expressed their readiness to accept
-the proposition of my- venerable friend from Kentucky, (Mr. Crittenden,) as a final settlement of the controversy, if tendered and
sustained by the Republican members. Hence. the, sole responsibility of our disagreement, and the only difficulty in the way of our
amicable adjustment, is with the Republican party.
At first I thought your reason for declining to adjust this ques
tion amicably, was that the Constitution, as it stands, was good
enough, and that you would make  no amendment to it.  That
proposition has already been waived. The great leader of the
Republican party (Mr. Seward) by the unanimous concurrence of
his friends, brought into the committee of thirteen a proposition
to amend the Constitution. Inasmuch, therefore, as you are willing to amend the instrument, and to entertain propositions of ad ustment, why not go further and relieve the apt rehensions of the
Southern people on all points where you do not intend to operate
aggressively?  You offer to amend the Constitution, by declaring
that no future amendments shall be made which shall empower
Congress to interfere with slavery in the States?
Now if you do not intend to do any other act prejudicial to
their constitutional rights and safety, why not relieve their apprehensions by inserting in your own proposed amendment to the
Constitution, such further provisions as will,, in like manner,
render it impossible for you to do that which they apprehend you 
STEPHEN A DOUGLAS.
intend to do. and which you have no purpose of doing, if it be
true that you have no such purpose? For the purpose of removing the apprehensions of the Southern people, and for no other
purpose, you propose to amend the Constitution, so as to render it
impossible, in all future time, for Congress to interfere with slavery
in the States where it may exist under the laws thereof.. Why
not insert a similar amendment in respect to slavery in the District of Columbia, and in the navy-yards, forts arsenals, and other
places within the limits of the slaveholding States, over which
Congress has exclusive jurisdiction? Why not insert a similar provision in respect to the slave trade between the slaveholding
States-? The Southern people have more serious apprehensions on
these points than they have of your direct interference with
slavery.
If their apprehensions on these several points are groundless, is
it not a duty you owe to God and your Country to relieve their
anxiety and remove all causes of discontent? Is there!ot quite
as much reason for relieving their apprehensions upon these points,
in regard to which they are much more sensitive, as in respect to
your direct interference in the States, where they know you acknowledge that you have no power to interfere as the Constitution
now stands? The fact that you propose to give the assurance on
one point and peremptorily refuse to give it on the others, seems
to authorize the presumption that you do intend to use the powers
of the Federal Government for the purpose of direct interference
with slavery and the slave. trade everywhere else, with the view to
its indirect effects upon slavery in the States;' or, in the language
of Mr. Lincoln, with the view of its "ultimate extinction in all the
States, old as well as new, North as well as South."
If you had exhausted your ingenuity in devising a plan for the
express purpose of increasing the apprehensions and inflaming.the
passions of the Southern people, with the view of driving them
into revolution and disunion, none could have been contrived
better calculated to accomplish the object than the offering of
that one amendment to the Constitution, and rejecting all others
which are infinitely more important to the safety and tranquillity
of the slaveholding States.
In my opinion, we have now reached a point where this agitation must close, and all the matters in controversy be finally determined by Constituttional amendments, or civil war and the disruption of the Union are inevitable. My friend from Oregon, (Mr.
Baker,) who has addressed the Senate for the last two days, will fail
in his avowed purpose to "evade" the question.  He claims to be
liberal andconservative; and I must confess that he seems to be the
most liberal of any gentlemen on that side of the Chamber, always
excepting the noble and patriotic speech of the Senator from Connecticut, (Mr Dixon,) and the utmost extent to which the Senator
2 1 Irl 
THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF
from Oregoni would consent to go, was to devise a scheme by which
the real question at issue could be evaded.
I regret the determination to which I apprehend the RepuiblicalL
Senators have come, to make no adjustment, entertain no proposi.
tion, and listen to no compromise of the matters in controversy.
I fear, from all the indications, that they are disposed to treat
the matter as a party question, to be determined in caucus with
reference to its effects upon the prospects of their party, rather
than upon the peace of the Country and the safety of the Union. I
invoke their deliberate judgment Whether it is not a dangerous ex periment for any political party to demonstrate to the American
people that the unity of their party is dearer to thiem than the
Union of these States.  The argument is, that the Chicago plat form having been ratified by the people in a majority of the States
must be maintained at all hazards, no matter what the consequen ces to the Country. I insist that they are mistaken in the fact
when they assert that this question was decided by the American
people in the late election.  The American people have not decided
that they preferred the disruption of this Government and civil
war with all its horrors and miseries, to surrendering one iota of
the Chicago platform. If you believe that the people are with you
on this issue, let the question be submitted to the people on the
proposition offered by the Senator from Kentucky, or mine, or
any other fair compromise, and I will venture the prediction, that
your own people will ratify the proposed amendments to the' Con.
stitution, in order to take this slavery question out of Congress,
and restore peace to the Country, and insure the perpetuity of the
Union.
Why not give the people a chance? It is an important crisis.
There is now a different issue presented from that in the Presidential election. I have no doubt that the people of Massachusetts,
by an overwhelming majority, are in favor of a prohibition of slavery in the Territories by an act of Congress. An overwhelming
majority of the same people were in favor of the instant prohibition of the African slave trade, on moral and religious grounds,
when the Constitution was made. When they found that the Constitution could not be adopted and the Union preserved, without
surrendering their objections on the slavery question, they, in the
spirit of patriotism and christian feeling, preferred the lesser evil
to the greater, and ratified the Constitution without their favorite
provision in regard to slavery. Give them a chance to decide now
between the ratification of these proposed amendments to the Constitution and the consequences which your policy will inevitably
produce.
Why not allow the people to pass on these questions? All we have
to do is to submit them to the States. If the people reject them,
theirs will be the responsibility, and no harm will have been done by
the reference. If they accept them, the Country will be safe" and at
peace. The political party which shall refuse to allow the people
216 
STEPHEN A DOUGLAS.
to datermine for themselves at the ballot-box the issue between
revolution and war on the one side, and obstinate adherence to
party platform on the other, will assume a fearful responsibility.
A war upon a political issue, waged by the people of eighteen
States against the people and domestic institutions of fifteen sister
States, is a fearful and revolting thought. The South will be a
unit, and desperate, under the belief that your object in waging war
is their destruction, and not the preservation of the Union; that
you meditate servile insurrection, and the abolition of slavery in
the Southern States, by fire and sword, in the name and under pretext of enforcing the laws and vindicating the authority of the
(Government.  You know that such is the prevailing, and I may
say, unanimous opinion at the South; and that ten millions of
people are preparing for the terrible conflict under that conviction.
When there is such an irrepressible discontent pervading ten million people, penetrating the bosom of every man, woman, and
child, and, in their estimation, involving everything that is valuable and dear on earth, is it not time to pause and reflect whether
there is not some cause, real or imaginary for apprehension? If
there be a just cause for it, in God's name, in the name of humanity and civilization, let it be removed. Will we not be guilty in
the sight of Heaven and of posterity, if we do not remove all just
cause before proceeding to extremes? If, on the contrary, there be
no real foundation for these apprehensions; if it be all a mistake,
and yet they, believing it to be a solemn reality, are determined to
act on that belief, is it not equally our duty to remove the misapprehension? Hence the obligation to remove the causes of discontent, whether real or imaginary, is alike imperative upon us, if
we wish to preserve the peace of the Country and the Union of
the States.
It matters not, so far as the peace of the country and the pre
ervation of the Union are concerned, whether the apprehensions
of the Southern people are well founded or not, so long as they
believe them, and are determined to act upon that belief.  If war
comes, it must have an end at some time; and that termination, 1
apprehend, will be a final separation. Whether the war last one
year, seven years, or thirty years, the result must be the same-a
cessation of hostilities when the parties become exhausted, and a
treaty of peace recognizing the separate independence of each section. The history of the world does not furnish an instance, where
war has raged for a series of years between two classes of States,
divided by a geographical line under the same National Government, which has ended in reconciliation and reunion. Extermination, subjugation, or separation, one of the three, must be the result of war between the Northern and Southern States. Surely,
you do not expect to exterminate or subjugate ten million people,
the entire population of one section, as a means of preserving
amicable relations between the two sections?
I repeat, then, my solemn conviction, that war means disunion,
217
I 
218  THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
final, irrevocable, eternal separation.  I see no alternative, there.
fore, but a fair compromise, founded on the basis of mutual concessions, alike honorable, just, and beneficial to all parties, or civil
war and disunion. Is there anything humiliating in a fair compromise of conflicting interests, opinions, and theories, for the
sake of peace, Union and safety? Read the debates of the Federal
convention, which formed our glorious Constitution, and you will
find noble examples, worthy of imitation; instances where sages
and patriots were willing to surrender cherished theories and principles of Government, believed to be essential to the best form of
society, for the sake of peace and unity.
I never understood that wise and good men ever regarded mutual concessions by such men as Washington, Madison, Franklin,
and Hamilton, as evidences of weakness, cowardice, or want of patriotism. On the contrary, this spirit of conciliation and compromise, has ever been considered, and will in all time be regarded as
the highest evidence which their great deeds and immortal services
ever furnished of their patriotism, wisdom, foresight, and devotion
to their Country and their race. Can we not afford to imitate
their example in this momentuous crisis? Are we to be told that
we must not do our duty to our Country lest we injure the party;
that no compromise can be effected without violating the party
platform upon which we were elected? Better that all party platforms be scattered to the winlds; better that all political organizations be broken up; better that every public man and politician in
America be consigned to political martyrdom, than that the Union
be destroyed and the Country plunged into civil war.
It seems that party platforms, pride of opinion, personal consistency, or fear of political martyrdom, are the only obstacles to a satisfactory adjustment. Have we nothing else to live for but political
position? Have we no other inducement, no other incentive to our
efforts, our toils, and our sacrifices? Most of us have children, the
objects of our tenderest affections and deepest solicitude, whom
we hope to leave behind us to enjoy the rewards of our labors in a
happy, prosperous and united Country, under the best Government-the wisdom of man ever devised or the sun of Heaven ever
shone upon. Can we make no concessions, no sacrifices, for the
sake of our children, that they may have a country to live in, and
a Government to protect them, when party platforms and political
honors shall avail us nothing in the day of final reckoning?
In conclusion, I have only to renew the assurance that I am
prepared to co-operate cordially with the friends of a fair, just, and
honorable compromise, in securing such amendments to the Constitution as will expel the slavery agitation from Congress and the
arena of Federal politics forever, and restore peace to the Country,
and preserve our liberties and Union as the most precious legacy
we can transmit to our posterity.
THE END. 
N EW AND LATA BOOKS
FURNISHED BY THE
PubiL~ehJ:f tha$ YoI~m.1
]AILING NOTICE.-Any books on the frollowing list will be sent,.o
faid, to any address, on receipt of price.  Address THE  PUBLISHERS
tF THIS VOLTTME.  See title page.
ThmTOTCAL "A  SWRET Mo OF op
.a-ss  Jospxznlx   A secret and truthful history of one of the most remarkabie
of women, untdg all the value of absorbing facts with that of the most exdiM
ronoe.  Tmnsated from the French of'lle IL  Normand, by JADa I    ]$
Mmi %    S ols. in one.  Cloth. Price $1 75.
6JCR3S OFP THE COURT OF  ARnII A:A
An imstructive workone of the most intensely interesting ever issu*
from the American press-the  vents of which should be familiar to  l1
jADAx'     CAmAw.'' With Biographical Introduetion by aL Dz lb
yels. in cte Cloth. Price $1 7.
VEMOTh.S OF THE LIFE OF [AY, QUEEN O
ScoTa Afferding a complete and authentic history of the unfortunate Mary, wit
materials and letters not used by other authors, making up a volume of rare i&
Swret andvali, By MmiBaBa    W l xhportraite-#L o n, ls
1Wb.@ 
NEW AND LATE BOOKS.
M,O0IRS Of THE QUEENS OF FRANCE. Writ.
ten in France, carefully compiled from researches made there, commended by
the,ress generally, and published from the Tenth London Edition. It is a truly
valuable work for the reader and student of history.  By Mas. PoRim BusL
2 vole. in one. Cloth. Price $1 75.
MEMOIRS OFu THE LIFE OF ANNE BOLER
Qrz-x OF Hsiay VIII.  In the records of biographer there Js no character th$
more forcibly exemplifies the vanity of human ambition, or more thoroughly
enlists the attention of the reader than this-the Seventh American, and from
ie Third London Edition. By Miss BENERa. With portrait on steel Cloth.  $1 7&
]~ROIc WOMEN OF HISTORY. Containing the
most extraordinary examples of female courage of ancieat and modem times,
and set before the wives, sisters, and daughters of the country, in the hope the
it may make them even more renowned for resolution, fortitude, and self-sacriice
than the Spartan females of old.  By HEmr C. WATsow. With Illustration
Cloth. $1 75.
IUBLIC AND PRIVATE HISTORY OF Louis NA   I-OLEON, ]E~rEaoa OFr THrE FRENCa.  An impartial view of the public and private
career of this extraordinary man, giving fall information in regard to his most
tstinjuished ministers,  generals,  relatives and  favorites.  By bf            L IAL
SCEMucKia, LL. D.  With portraits on Steel  Cloth.  *1 7&
IKE AND REIGN OF NICHOLAS I., E]EROi
i*  RUSSIA.  The only complete history of this great personage that has appeare
In the English language, and furnishes interesting facts in connection with Rup
aFan society and government of great practical value to the attentive roeaL 11
Axui L M. Sciwcsrsa, LL D.  With Illustrations.  Cloth.  i$1 75.
.LFE, AND TIMES OF GEORGE WASHsINGTOir.
A concise and condensed narrative of Washington's eareer especially adapted to
the popular reader, and presented as the best matter upon this immortal theme
ea especially worthy the attention and admiration of every  America    t
i teuL K.  Svmfunt LL. D.  With Portrait a steel.  CLoth.,   1&
2 
NEW AND LATE BOOKS.
lJz AND TIMES OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON.
Incidents of a career that will never lose its singular power to attract and in   struct, while giving impressive lessons of the brightest elements of character,
eurrounded and assailed by the basest.  By SAHUEL  M. SCEMUCKxa, LL. D.  With
Portrmt on steel.  Cloth.  $1 75.
LIFE AND TIMES OF THOMAS JEFFERSON. II
which the author has presented both the merits and defects of this great repre
sentatlve hero in their true light, and has studiously avoided indiscriminate
praise or wholesale censure.  By SAEEL KM. SCaUUCKRE, LL. D.  With PorB
coth.  V  75.
LIFE OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN. Furnishing a
superior and comprehensive record of this celebrated Statesman and Phileo
pher-rich beyond parallel in lessons of wisdom for every age, calling and oOb
dition in life, public and private. By 0. L. HOL.LEY. With Portrait on steel d
Illustration,, on wood. Cloth. $1 75.
PUBLIC A   PRIVATE LIFE OF DANIEL WEB   aTzL  The most copious and attractive collection of personal memorials concern   tng the great Statesman that has hitherto been published, and by one whose
Intimate and confiaential relations with him afford a guarantee for their authen
ticity. By Gen. S. P. LxMiN. With Illustrations. Cloth. $1 75.
IFE AND Tm  OF HENRY CLAY. An impar   tlial biography, presenting, by bold and simple strokes of the historic pencil, a
trtraiture of the illustrious theme which no one should fail to read, and me
library be without. By SAMUEL M. Sc,MUtcXm, LL. D.  With Portrait on  fet
Cloth. $1 75.
LIFE AND PUBLIC SERVICES OF STEPHEN A.
Douses.   A true and faithful exposition of the leading incidents of his brilliant
eareer arranged so as to instruct the reader and produce the careful study whicl
the life of so great a man de  rvea   By H. M. FLLNTr.  With Portrait on,
$asa    71 
I 
NE W AND LATE BOOKS.
LIClE AID PUBLIC SERVICES OF ABRAHAEM Lin,
OOLN. (In both the English and German languages.) As a record of this great
man it is a most desirable work, admirably arranged for reference, with aL
Index over each page, from which the reader can familiarize himself with the
ontents by glancing through it.  By FRANK CROSBY, of the Philadelphia  Na_
With Pertrait on steeL  Cloth.  $1 75                                               /
~IFE OF DANIEL BOONE, THE GREATWEST.ERI
RUxZR AND PIONEER. Comprising graphic and authentic accounts of his darin
thrilling adventures, wonderful skill, coolness and sagacity under the most haw
ardous ciroumstances, with an-autobiography dictated by himself   By CECm B.
RlTLzr.  With Illustrations,  Cloth.  $1 75.
LiFZ OF COLONEL DAVID CROCKET, THE ORI.,
SGINAL HUXORIST AND IRREPRESSIBLE BACKWOODSMAN.  Showing his strong will
and Indomitable spirit, his bear hunting, his military services, his career in Con
gms, and his triumphal tour through the States-written by himself; to which
Is added the account of his glorious death at the Alamo. With Illustrations.
Cl4h.  01 75.
LFr OF]01KIT CA.RSON THE GREIAT WESTERN
RUWTEa Ano GuIDm. An exciting volume of wild and romantic exploits, thrillng
adventures, hair-breadth escapes, daring coolness, moral and physical courage,
and invaluable services-such as rarely traNspire in the history of the world,
By CHARLES BusDETr. With Illustrations. Cloth. $1 75.
LTFE OF CAPTAIN JOEHN SMITH, THE FOUNDER
IP VIRGINIA.  The adventures contained herein serve to denote the more noblb
and daring events of a period distinguished by its spirit, its courage, and its pa
sion, and challenges the attention of the American people. By W. Go_
&k —s   With Illustrations.  Price $1 75.
~FE OF GENERAL FRANCIS MARION, TI
CZLSBRATRD P.. ISAN HERO OF TRE REVOLUTION.  This was one of the most
distinguished    n who -!n-. in. rand theatre of war during the times that
"tried men's sol" and his binil.n. car-er has scarcely a parallel n
at  Be      IL areL.  With T                  CirQUloas   Olo.  1 7.
a
c 
RAW AND LATE BOOKS.
IKE OF GENERAL ANDREW JACKSON, THE
CXLENEATED PATRIOT AND STATESMAN.  The character here shown as firm in will,
clear in judgment, rapid in decision and decidedly pronounced, sprung from com  parative obscurity to the highest gift within the power of the American peplI
ad is prolifs in interest.  By ALEXANDER WALKEL  $1 75.
AFE AND TIMES OF GENERAL SAM HtOUSTON   YEg  HUNTER, PATRIOT, AND STATESMAN.  It reminds one of the story of Romulue
who was nurtured byr the beasts of the forest till he planted the foundations of 
mnighty empire-and stands alone as an authentic memoir.  With Maps, Ported
n Illustratiocs.  Cloth.  $1 75.
LIVES Of THE  THREE MRS. JUDISOWS, TH]
CBLEBRATZD FEMALE MISSIONARIm.  The domestic lives and individual labors of
these three bright stars in the galaxy of American heroines, who in ministering
to the souls of heathens, experienced much of perseeution. By CSCIL B. HARTLzr.
With steel 1ortraits. Cloth. $1 75.
LIFE OF ELISHA ]KENT KAxE, AND OF OTHER
DISTINGUISHBD AMERICAN EXPLORERS.  A narrative of the discoverers who pot
sess the strongest hold upon public interest and attention, and one of the few
deeply interesting volumes of distinguished Americans of this class.  By SA8I
M. SCHxMUORZ, LL. D. With Portrait on steel. Cloth. $1 75.
FE LiFE AND ADVENTURES OF PAULINI
C~SRaN, THE CBELEBATED UNION SPY AND SCOUT.  Stirring details from the lips
ef the subject herself, whose courage, heroism, and devotiou to the old flag, em
cleared her to tb Army of the Southwest.   By F. L. SARXIENTO, Esq., Membe
of the PhilaielpiMa Bar.   With Portrait on steel and Illustrations on wAr
aeth.  $1 75.
JZFyIERSON DAVIS AND STONEWALL JACKSON:
Txs LIPF  AND PUBLIC SERvICEs OF EACil. Truths from the livew of these men,
both of whom served their country before the war, and afterwards threw them
Wlves Into the cause of the South with unbounded zeal-affording valuable Li
t     ats  r l loti th Bud BouthiL  With  llwl    th. Ci    $1 ~t 
a 
IEW AND LATE BOOKiL
ConsrCA, AD iiHE EARLY LIFE OF NAPOLiO~t.
Delicately drawn idyl ic descriptions of the Island, yielding new light to pelilci
history, exciting much attention in Germany and England, and altogether makw
a book of rare character and value.  Translated by Hon. B. Jov Mona, WI*
I'Pr t on steel  Cloth.  $1 75.
'E HIORSE AND HIS I)ISASES: EMBRiArwIN
~I$ HISTORY AND VARIETIES, BREEDING AND MANAGEMENT, AND VICES.  A splen:
complete, and reliable book-the work of more than fifteen years' careful study   pointing out diseases accurately, and recommending remedies that have stood the
test of actual trial. To which is added "RAREY'S METHOD OF TRATNING HIOBs"
]By ROBEaT JENNINGS, V.. S With nearly one hunlred Illustrations. Cloth. 11 7&
6HEEP, SWINE, AND POULTRY. Enumerating -
their varieties and histories; the best modes of breeding, feeding, and managing;
the diseases to which they are subject; the best remedies-and offering the bes
practical treatise of its kind now published.   By ROBERT JENriNNs, V. 8.  With
numerous Illustrations. ClothL $1 75.
CATTLE AND THEIR DISEASES.  Giving theiir
history and breeds, crossing and breeding, feeding and managemtn,, with the
diseases to which they are subjet, ant o ne remedies best adapted to their cure;
to which is added a list of remedies used i, zreating cattle.  By ROBEaT Jo
INGs, V. S.  With numerouP.stratio', Cloth.  $1 T
GORSE TRA:P.Li9 B/ADE EASY.  A new and
practical syste., lea — a'r and Educating the Horse, including whip training
and thoroug. mstL         s in  regard to shoeing-full of information ot a Bsefy
and well-tested,aractor.  1y ROBIaT JlNINGs, V.$ 8             ha,-        H'.h
';moti     J1o   i.  1 _
WORECRIPTS WCRE P  -                            1P WEIGHT IN OLID.
a ueauallcd variety in,ad, the c,,ection and testingof which haveextended
through i,  pc,iod of thirty years —  number of them having never before appeared
;n prin'-, while all a,r simple plain, and highly menttoriou.   By JOaN 
a,  QC K! bn         o t, t        Cloth. $1 7
4 
NEW AND LATE 00SK&
5W EMPLOYMENTS ADAPTED TO WOMEN.
Throwing open to womankind productive fields of labor everywhere and afford   Ing full opportunity to select employments best adapted to their tastes-all the
result of over three years' constant care and investigation. By Xi" Vats
]xy.  Cloth.  $1 75.
RVERYBODY'S LAWYER AND Bco OF FORML,
The simplicity of its instructions, the comprehensiveness of its subject, and t   socuracy of its details, together with its perfect arrangement, conciseness, attram
tiveness and cheapness make it the most desirable of all legal hand-books. By
Y.ANX  CaosBY, Esq.  Thoroughly revised to date by S. J. VA~DIRSLOOT, Esq
O pp.  Law Style.  $2 00.
THE FAMILY DOCTOR. Intended to guard
sgainst diseases in the family; to furnish the proper treatment for the sick; to
ihnpart knowledge in regard to medicines, herbs, and plants; to show how to pre   serve a sound body and mind, and written in plain language, free from medical
terms. By Prof. HENRY~ TAYLOa, M.D.  Profusely Illustrated.  Cloth.  $1 75.
THE AMERICAN PRACTICAL COOKERY BOOK.
A faithful and highly useful guide, whose directions all can safely follew, making
housekeeping easy, pleasant, and economical in all its departments, and based
upon the personal test, throughout, of an intelligent practical hous4akeeper. Ills
mrated with Fifty Engravings. Cloth. $1 75.
MODERN COOKERY IN ALL ITS BRANCHES. Do   signed to interest and benefit housekeepers everywhere by its plain and simple
$structions in regard to the judicious preparation of food, and Altogether a wcrk;
5  superior merit.  By Miss ELIZA ACTON.   Carefully revisek oy Mrs. B=ri
ALa      With many Illustrations and a copious Index.  Cloth.  $1 75E
TIRTY YEARS IN THE ARCTIC REGIONS. The
graphic narrative of Sir John Franklin, the most celebrated of Arcetic Travellers,
r! which Sir John tells his own story-unsurpassed for intense and all-abscrbing
: est-sketchi,g his three expeditions, and that part of theb fo   0
ih  mystery to the wrid.  Cloth  Si 76
I
z 
myW AN  LATE BOOKS.
EXPLORATIONS AND DISCOVERIES DUMB(
FouR YEARS' WANDERINGS IN THE WILDS OF SOUTHWESTERN AFRICA.  Important
and exciting experiences, full of wild adventure and instructive facts, whic
seem to possess a mysterious charm for every mind, and in which the spiri: d
intelligent and adventurous curiosity is everywhere prominent By Cri
Jozx ANiRsox   With Illustrations.  Cloth.  $1 75. 
LaVIWGSTONE'S TRAVELS AND PLESEARCHES Ii
SOUTH AFRICA.  Given in the pleasing language of Dr. Livingston.e, and rich in tU
personal adventures and hair-breadth escapes of that most indefatigable do
verer and interesting Christian gentleman-making a work of special valu&  B
DAVID LWIVOSTONx, LL. D., D. C. S.  Profusely Illustrated.  Cloth.  $1 T5.
TRAVEL2 AND DISCOVERIES IN NORTHII AND
CENTRAL. AFRiCA.  Recounting an expedition undertaken under the auspices o
H. B. M.'s Government, exhibiting the most remarkable courage, perseverance,
presence of mind, and contempt of danger and death, and immensely importa~
as a work of information.  By HEXEt   BARTH, Ph.D., D. C. L., etc.  With IllU
trations. Cloth. $1 75.
ELLIS' THREE VISITS TO MADAGASCAR. Writm.
ten in Madagascar, while on a visit to the queen and people, in which is carefully
described the singularly beautiful country and the manners and customs of iu
people, and from which an unusual amount of information is obtainable.  By e.
WILLIAM ELLIe, F. H. S.  Profusely Illustrated.  Cloth.  $1 75.
ORIENTAL AND WESTERN SIBERIA. A Stirs
ring narrati-e,f seven years' explorations in Siberia, Mongolia, the Yirghes
Steppes, Chin,se Tartary, and part of Central Asia, revealing extraordin4ry fa;
showing mu,b of hunger, thirst, and perilous adventure, and forming a work of
rare attractiveness for every reader.   By THoMAs  WILLIAM ATRIXS0x'
umnerous Illustrations. Cloth. $1 75.
J[UNTINC SCENES IN THE WILDS OF AFRICA
Thrilling adventures of daring hunters-Cummings, Harris  and others-ara
the Lions, Elephants, Giraffes, Buffaloes, and other animals-than which feo
ay wwre  are bore exitin   With nuamerom  Ilustrato    ClotL  el 1
I
I