Part 2 — APPENDICES (continued 2)

I suppose most of us (I know it of myself) believe that people of the Southern States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave law,—that is a right fixed in the Constitution. But it cannot be made available to them without Congressional legislation. In the Judge’s language, it is a “barren right,” which needs legislation before it can become efficient and valuable to the persons to whom it is guaranteed. And as the right is constitutional, I agree that the legislation shall be granted to it,—and that not that we like the institution of slavery. We profess to have no taste for running and catching niggers,—at least, I profess no taste for that job at all. Why then do I yield support to a Fugitive Slave law? Because I do not understand that the Constitution, which guarantees that right, can be supported without it. And if I believed that the right to hold a slave in a Territory was equally fixed in the Constitution with the right to reclaim fugitives, I should be bound to give it the legislation necessary to support it. I say that no man can deny his obligation to give the necessary legislation to support slavery in a Territory, who believes it is a constitutional right to have it there. No man can, who does not give the Abolitionists an argument to deny the obligation enjoined by the Constitution to enact a Fugitive State law. Try it now. It is the strongest Abolition argument ever made. I say if that Dred Scott decision is correct, then the right to hold slaves in a Territory is equally a constitutional right with the right of a slaveholder to have his runaway returned. No one can show the distinction 309between them. The one is express, so that we cannot deny it. The other is construed to be in the Constitution, so that he who believes the decision to be correct believes in the right. And the man who argues that by unfriendly legislation, in spite of that constitutional right, slavery may be driven from the Territories, cannot avoid furnishing an argument by which Abolitionists may deny the obligation to return fugitives, and claim the power to pass laws unfriendly to the right of the slaveholder to reclaim his fugitive. I do not know how such an argument may strike a popular assembly like this, but I defy anybody to go before a body of men whose minds are educated to estimating evidence and reasoning, and show that there is an iota of difference between the constitutional right to reclaim a fugitive, and the constitutional right to hold a slave, in a Territory, provided this Dred Scott decision is correct. I defy any man to make an argument that will justify unfriendly legislation to deprive a slaveholder of his right to hold a slave in a Territory, that will not equally, in all its length, breadth, and thickness, furnish an argument for nullifying the Fugitive Slave law. Why, there is not such an Abolitionist in the nation as Douglas, after all.

MR. DOUGLAS’S REJOINDER

Mr. Lincoln has concluded his remarks by saying that there is not such an Abolitionist as I am in all America. If he could make the Abolitionists of Illinois believe that, he would not have much show for the Senate. Let him make the Abolitionists believe the truth of that statement, and his political back is broken.

His first criticism upon me is the expression of his hope that the war of the Administration will be prosecuted against me and the Democratic party of this State with vigor. He wants that war prosecuted with vigor; I have no doubt of it. His hopes of success and the hopes of his party depend solely upon it. They have no chance of destroying the Democracy of this State except by the aid of Federal patronage. He has all the Federal officeholders here as his allies, running separate tickets against the Democracy to divide the party, although the leaders all intend to vote directly the Abolition ticket, and only leave the greenhorns to vote this separate ticket who refuse to go into the Abolition camp. There is something really refreshing in the thought that Mr. Lincoln is in favor of prosecuting one war vigorously. It is 310the first war that I ever knew him to be in favor of prosecuting. It is the first war that I ever knew him to believe to be just or constitutional. When the Mexican war was being waged, and the American army was surrounded by the enemy in Mexico, he thought that war was unconstitutional, unnecessary, and unjust. He thought it was not commenced on the right spot.

When I made an incidental allusion of that kind in the joint discussion over at Charleston some weeks ago, Lincoln, in replying, said that I, Douglas, had charged him with voting against supplies for the Mexican war, and then he reared up, full length, and swore that he never voted against the supplies; that it was a slander; and caught hold of Ficklin, who sat on the stand, and said, “Here, Ficklin, tell the people that it is a lie.” Well, Ficklin, who had served in Congress with him, stood up and told them all that he recollected about it. It was that when George Ashmun, of Massachusetts, brought forward a resolution declaring the war unconstitutional, unnecessary, and unjust, that Lincoln had voted for it. “Yes,” said Lincoln, “I did.” Thus he confessed that he voted that the war was wrong, that our country was in the wrong, and consequently that the Mexicans were in the right; but charged that I had slandered him by saying that he voted against the supplies. I never charged him with voting against the supplies in my life, because I knew that he was not in Congress when they were voted. The war was commenced on the 13th day of May, 1846, and on that day we appropriated in Congress ten millions of dollars and fifty thousand men to prosecute it. During the same session we voted more men and more money, and at the next session we voted more men and more money, so that by the time Mr. Lincoln entered Congress we had enough men and enough money to carry on the war, and had no occasion to vote for any more. When he got into the House, being opposed to the war, and not being able to stop the supplies, because they had all gone forward, all he could do was to follow the lead of Corwin of Ohio, and prove that the war was not begun on the right spot, and that it was unconstitutional, unnecessary, and wrong. Remember, too, that this he did after the war had been begun. It is one thing to be opposed to the declaration of a war, another and very different thing to take sides with the enemy against your own country after the war has been commenced. Our army was in Mexico at the time, many battles had been fought; our citizens, who were defending the honor of their country’s flag, were surrounded by 311the daggers, the guns, and the poison of the enemy. Then it was that Corwin made his speech in which he declared that the American soldiers ought to be welcomed by the Mexicans with bloody hands and hospitable graves; then it was that Ashmun and Lincoln voted in the House of Representatives that the war was unconstitutional and unjust; and Ashmun’s resolution, Corwin’s speech, and Lincoln’s vote were sent to Mexico and read at the head of the Mexican army, to prove to them that there was a Mexican party in the Congress of the United States who were doing all in their power to aid them. That a man who takes sides with the common enemy against his own country in time of war should rejoice in a war being made on me now, is very natural. And, in my opinion, no other kind of a man would rejoice in it.

Mr. Lincoln has told you a great deal to-day about his being an old line Clay Whig. Bear in mind that there are a great many old Clay Whigs down in this region. It is more agreeable, therefore, for him to talk about the old Clay Whig party than it is for him to talk Abolitionism. We did not hear much about the old Clay Whig party up in the Abolition districts. How much of an old line Henry Clay Whig was he? Have you read General Singleton’s speech at Jacksonville? You know that General Singleton was for twenty-five years the confidential friend of Henry Clay in Illinois, and he testified that in 1847, when the Constitutional Convention of this State was in session, the Whig members were invited to a Whig caucus at the house of Mr. Lincoln’s brother-in-law, where Mr. Lincoln proposed to throw Henry Clay overboard and take up General Taylor in his place, giving as his reason that, if the Whigs did not take up General Taylor, the Democrats would. Singleton testifies that Lincoln in that speech urged as another reason for throwing Henry Clay overboard, that the Whigs had fought long enough for principle, and ought to begin to fight for success. Singleton also testified that Lincoln’s speech did not have the effect of cutting Clay’s throat, and that he (Singleton) and others withdrew from the caucus in indignation. He further states that when they got to Philadelphia to attend the National Convention of the Whig party, that Lincoln was there, the bitter and deadly enemy of Clay, and that he tried to keep him (Singleton) out of the Convention because he insisted on voting for Clay, and Lincoln was determined to have Taylor. Singleton says that Lincoln rejoiced with very great joy when he found the mangled remains of the murdered Whig statesman lying cold before him. 312Now, Mr. Lincoln tells you that he is an old line Clay Whig! General Singleton testifies to the facts I have narrated, in a public speech which has been printed and circulated broadcast over the State for weeks, yet not a lisp have we heard from Mr. Lincoln on the subject, except that he is an old Clay Whig.

What part of Henry Clay’s policy did Lincoln ever advocate. He was in Congress in 1848–9, when the Wilmot Proviso warfare disturbed the peace and harmony of the country, until it shook the foundation of the Republic from its centre to its circumference. It was that agitation that brought Clay forth from his retirement at Ashland again to occupy his seat in the Senate of the United States, to see if he could not, by his great wisdom and experience, and the renown of his name, do something to restore peace and quiet to a disturbed country. Who got up that sectional strife that Clay had to be called upon to quell? I have heard Lincoln boast that he voted forty-two times for the Wilmot Proviso, and that he would have voted as many times more if he could. Lincoln is the man, in connection with Seward, Chase, Giddings, and other Abolitionists, who got up that strife that I helped Clay to put down. Henry Clay came back to the Senate in 1849, and saw that he must do something to restore peace to the country. The Union Whigs and the Union Democrats welcomed him, the moment he arrived, as the man for the occasion. We believed that he, of all men on earth, had been preserved by Divine Providence to guide us out of our difficulties, and we Democrats rallied under Clay then, as you Whigs in Nullification time rallied under the banner of old Jackson, forgetting party when the country was in danger, in order that we might have a country first, and parties afterward.

And this reminds me that Mr. Lincoln told you that the slavery question was the only thing that ever disturbed the peace and harmony of the Union. Did not Nullification once raise its head and disturb the peace of this Union in 1832? Was that the slavery question, Mr. Lincoln? Did not disunion raise its monster head during the last war with Great Britain? Was that the slavery question, Mr. Lincoln? The peace of this country has been disturbed three times, once during the war with Great Britain, once on the tariff question, and once on the slavery question. His argument therefore that slavery is the only question that has ever created dissension in the Union falls to the ground. It is true that agitators are enabled now to use this slavery question 313for the purpose of sectional strife. He admits that in regard to all things else, the principle that I advocate, making each State and Territory free to decide for itself, ought to prevail. He instances the cranberry laws and the oyster laws, and he might have gone through the whole list with the same effect. I say that all these laws are local and domestic, and that local and domestic concerns should be left to each State and each Territory to manage for itself. If agitators would acquiesce in that principle, there never would be any danger to the peace and harmony of the Union.

Mr. Lincoln tries to avoid the main issue by attacking the truth of my proposition, that our fathers made this government divided into Free and Slave States, recognizing the right of each to decide all its local questions for itself. Did they not thus make it? It is true that they did not establish slavery in any of the States, or abolish it in any of them; but finding thirteen States, twelve of which were slave and one free, they agreed to form a government uniting them together as they stood, divided into Free and Slave States, and to guarantee forever to each State the right to do as it pleased on the slavery question. Having thus made the government, and conferred this right upon each State forever, I assert that this government can exist as they made it, divided into Free and Slave States, if any one State chooses to retain slavery. He says that he looks forward to a time when slavery shall be abolished everywhere. I look forward to a time when each State shall be allowed to do as it pleases. If it chooses to keep slavery forever, it is not my business, but its own; if it chooses to abolish slavery, it is its own business,—not mine. I care more for the great principle of self-government, the right of the people to rule, than I do for all the negroes in Christendom. I would not endanger the perpetuity of this Union, I would not blot out the great inalienable rights of the white men, for all the negroes that ever existed. Hence, I say, let us maintain this government on the principles that our fathers made it on, recognizing the right of each State to keep slavery as long as its people determine, or to abolish it when they please. But Mr. Lincoln says that when our fathers made this government they did not look forward to the state of things now existing, and therefore he thinks the doctrine was wrong; and he quotes Brooks, of South Carolina, to prove that our fathers then thought that probably slavery would be abolished by each State acting for itself before this time. Suppose they did; suppose they did not foresee what has occurred,—does that change the 314principles of our government? They did not probably foresee the telegraph that transmits intelligence by lightning, nor did they foresee the railroads that now form the bonds of union between the different States, or the thousand mechanical inventions that have elevated mankind. But do these things change the principles of the government? Our fathers, I say, made this government on the principle of the right of each State to do as it pleases in its own domestic affairs, subject to the Constitution, and allowed the people of each to apply to every new change of circumstances such remedy as they may see fit to improve their condition. This right they have for all time to come.

Mr. Lincoln went on to tell you that he does not at all desire to interfere with slavery in the States where it exists, nor does his party. I expected him to say that down here. Let me ask him, then, how he expects to put slavery in the course of ultimate extinction everywhere, if he does not intend to interfere with it in the States where it exists? He says that he will prohibit it in all Territories, and the inference is, then, that unless they make Free States out of them he will keep them out of the Union; for, mark you, he did not say whether or not he would vote to admit Kansas with slavery or not, as her people might apply (he forgot that, as usual, etc.); he did not say whether or not he was in favor of bringing the Territories now in existence into the Union on the principle of Clay’s Compromise Measures on the slavery question. I told you that he would not. His idea is that he will prohibit slavery in all the Territories, and thus force them all to become Free States, surrounding the Slave States with a cordon of Free States, and hemming them in, keeping the slaves confined to their present limits whilst they go on multiplying, until the soil on which they live will no longer feed them, and he will thus be able to put slavery in a course of ultimate extinction by starvation. He will extinguish slavery in the Southern States as the French general exterminated the Algerines when he smoked them out. He is going to extinguish slavery by surrounding the Slave States, hemming in the slaves, and starving them out of existence, as you smoke a fox out of his hole. He intends to do that in the name of humanity and Christianity, in order that we may get rid of the terrible crime and sin entailed upon our fathers of holding slaves. Mr. Lincoln makes out that line of policy, and appeals to the moral sense of justice and to the Christian feeling of the community to sustain him. He says that any 315man who holds to the contrary doctrine is in the position of the king who claimed to govern by divine right. Let us examine for a moment and see what principle it was that overthrew the divine right of George the Third to govern us. Did not these Colonies rebel because the British Parliament had no right to pass laws concerning our property and domestic and private institutions without our consent? We demanded that the British Government should not pass such laws unless they gave us representation in the body passing them; and this the British Government insisting on doing, we went to war, on the principle that the Home Government should not control and govern distant colonies without giving them a representation. Now, Mr. Lincoln proposes to govern the Territories without giving them a representation, and calls on Congress to pass laws controlling their property and domestic concerns without their consent and against their will. Thus, he asserts for his party the identical principle asserted by George III. and the Tories of the Revolution.

I ask you to look into these things and then tell me whether the Democracy or the Abolitionists are right. I hold that the people of a Territory, like those of a State (I use the language of Mr. Buchanan in his Letter of Acceptance), have the right to decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits. The point upon which Chief Justice Taney expresses his opinion is simply this, that slaves, being property, stand on an equal footing with other property, and consequently that the owner has the same right to carry that property into a Territory that he has any other, subject to the same conditions. Suppose that one of your merchants was to take fifty or one hundred thousand dollars’ worth of liquors to Kansas. He has a right to go there, under that decision; but when he gets there he finds the Maine liquor law in force, and what can he do with his property after he gets it there? He cannot sell it, he cannot use it; it is subject to the local law, and that law is against him, and the best thing he can do with it is to bring it back into Missouri or Illinois and sell it. If you take negroes to Kansas, as Colonel Jefferson Davis said in his Bangor speech, from which I have quoted to-day, you must take them there subject to the local law. If the people want the institution of slavery, they will protect and encourage it; but if they do not want it they will withhold that protection, and the absence of local legislation protecting slavery excludes it as completely as a positive prohibition. You 316slaveholders of Missouri might as well understand what you know practically, that you cannot carry slavery where the people do not want it. All you have a right to ask is that the people shall do as they please: if they want slavery, let them have it; if they do not want it, allow them to refuse to encourage it.

My friends, if, as I have said before, we will only live up to this great fundamental principle, there will be peace between the North and the South. Mr. Lincoln admits that, under the Constitution, on all domestic questions, except slavery, we ought not to interfere with the people of each State. What right have we to interfere with the people of each State? What right have we to interfere with slavery any more than we have to interfere with any other question? He says that this slavery question is now the bone of contention. Why? Simply because agitators have combined in all the Free States to make war upon it. Suppose the agitators in the States should combine in one half of the Union to make war upon the railroad system of the other half? They would thus be driven to the same sectional strife. Suppose one section makes war upon any other particular institution of the opposite section, and the same strife is produced. The only remedy and safety is that we shall stand by the Constitution as our fathers made it, obey the laws as they are passed, while they stand the proper test, and sustain the decisions of the Supreme Court and the constituted authorities.

317

APPENDIX B The Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Alton

(Prepared as an exercise in briefing by a class in written argumentation)

Senator Douglas’s Speech

Proposition: Vote for Douglas and the Democratic Party

Introduction

Douglas states that there are three points at issue between Lincoln and himself:

1. Whether the Union can exist half slave and half free.

2. Whether the Supreme Court was in error in the Dred Scott Decision.

3. Whether the Declaration of Independence included the negroes.

Proof

Proposition: (Repeated) Vote for Douglas and the Democratic Party, because

A. The Republican creed is wrong for the reason that it cannot be advocated everywhere, for

I. Any creed is radically wrong that cannot be proclaimed alike in every state in the Union.

B. Refutation: The argument that this government cannot exist half slave and half free is unsound, for

I. Each state decides upon its own institutions, for

a. Each state is sovereign.

II. If the makers of the Constitution had believed Lincoln’s doctrine, they would have made a provision establishing slavery, for

a. At that time twelve out of thirteen states were slave holding states.

318III. It would be unjust for the Northern states to attack slavery in the slave states, for

a. When the free states were in the minority the slave states did not interfere with them.

b. It would violate the sovereignty of the states which is guaranteed them in the Constitution.

C. Lincoln is undecided about the admission of more slave states, for

I. He would not answer at Ottawa.

II. At Freeport he said he would be very sorry to be put in a position to decide that question.

III. He has not answered my question directly, for

a. His answer depended upon whether slavery had been kept out during the state’s whole territorial existence, etc.

IV. He has not said, and will not say, whether, if elected to Congress, he will vote to admit any territory now in existence with such a Constitution as her people may provide.

V. He will not say whether he will redeem our pledge with Texas.

D. Douglas takes a clear and just stand on these questions, for

I. He plainly states that he will let the people of any territory come into the Union slave or free as they decide.

E. Douglas has stood by the principles he advocated, for

I. He opposed the Lecompton Constitution because it did not represent the will of the people, for

a. When it was submitted to the people of Kansas last August it was rejected by a vote of ten to one.

II. He refused to support the English bill, for

a. He was right and honest in his opposition to the Lecompton Constitution.

b. He believed that whenever Kansas had enough people for a slave state she had enough people for a free state but the English bill was directly opposed to this principle, for

1. The bill provided that if Kansas came in as a slave state it would be admitted with a population of 35,000, but if it desired admission as a free state it must have 93,420 inhabitants.

319III. He opposes the attempt on the part of the Executive to control the Senate, for

a. It will lead to despotism.

IV. He stands on the same platform now that he stood on in 1850, 1854, and 1856, for

a. Even the Washington Union admits this.

F. The principle of letting the people of each state decide for themselves about slavery is the right principle, for

I. It is the principle advocated by our leading statesmen and patriots, for

a. James Buchanan advocates it, for

1. He said so in his letter of acceptance after he received the Democratic nomination for the Presidency in 1856.

b. Chief Justice Taney does not deny this principle.

c. The Honorable Jefferson Davis took the same view in his speech at Bangor, Maine.

d. The Speaker of the House, Mr. Orr, holds the same view.

e. Alex. H. Stephens puts the same construction upon it that Douglas does.

II. The people believe it is right, for

a. The people made James Buchanan president on this same principle.

III. It is the principle that can bring peace to the Union, for

a. If the people of all the states will act on this great principle, and each state mind its own business, take care of its own negroes, and not meddle with its neighbors, there will be no cause for dissension.

Conclusion

A. A plea for peace by adopting the principles presented in the proof.

B. A denunciation of those who seek to turn this public controversy to their own personal advantage.

Mr. Lincoln’s Reply

Proposition: Vote for Lincoln and the Republican party.

Introduction

A. Lincoln advises Judge Douglas to continue the war upon the other wing of his party.

320B. Douglas should not make too much of Buchanan’s inconsistency because he is inconsistent himself, for he once championed the Missouri Compromise but now he opposes it.

Proof

Proposition: (Repeated) Vote for Lincoln and the Republican party, because

A. Refutation: The statement that I have complained that the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case had decided that a negro could never be a citizen of the United States is untrue, for

I. No such idea can be found in my speech.

II. The truth is that I mentioned the Dred Scott Decision only as part of a conspiracy to make slavery national.

B. Douglas misrepresents my position on the Declaration of Independence, for

I. He has garbled my Chicago speech, for

a. He omitted between two quotations four sentences necessary to my meaning.

II. Douglas has taken no notice of an extract from my Springfield speech in which my views are clearly expressed.

III. My position is the same as that of Henry Clay, for

a. Clay declared the Declaration as an abstract principle is true and the new proposition of the Dred Scott Decision is intended to make the negro nothing but property in all the states.

b. Refutation: The statement that Henry Clay held that the negro was not included in the Declaration of Independence is untrue, for

1. He never expressed this belief.

2. The speech referred to in the Chicago Times as showing that this was Mr. Clay’s view shows precisely the opposite view, for

(a) He says that it is true as an abstract principle that all men are created equal, but that we cannot practically apply it in all cases.

C. Lincoln still says that the proposition that “A house divided against itself cannot stand” is true, for

I. The agitation over slavery will not cease, for

321a. Douglas’ Kansas-Nebraska bill has stirred up the whole discussion again, for

1. Although the Kansas-Nebraska bill was declared to be the end it has stirred up strife in the last Congress and throughout the entire country.

b. In its pretense to confer local self-government the Kansas-Nebraska bill proved to be a lie.

II. The framers of the Constitution hoped to put slavery in a course of extinction, for

a. They provided that the slave trade should cease after twenty years.

b. The Constitution does not contain the words “slavery” or “negro race,” for

1. Its framers thought slavery a temporary thing.

2. Fugitive slaves are not mentioned.

3. The representation clause avoids using these words.

III. Refutation: The statement that the framers of the Constitution introduced slavery is not true, for

a. They found it but marked it with their disapproval.

IV. Lincoln wishes to return to the policy of the framers of the Constitution, for

a. Refutation: The charge that the Constitution has stirred up this agitation over slavery is false, for

1. The agitation has been stirred up by Judge Douglas and his friends.

b. Other local laws have not caused strife, for

1. The cranberry laws of Indiana caused no strife.

2. The oyster laws of Virginia have not caused strife.

c. The slave traffic has caused trouble whenever it has attempted to extend itself, for

1. The Missouri Compromise and the Annexation of Texas prove this.

2. Slavery has divided political parties and churches.

D. The real issue between Lincoln and Douglas is not as to states, it is whether Congress shall exclude slavery from the territories while in a territorial condition, for

I. I agree with Douglas that the states have a right to determine for themselves about slavery.

II. I differ from Douglas as to the right of the people to take slaves into the territories of the United States, for

322a. We must preserve the territories for free white people the world over.

E. Fundamentally this controversy means that the Republicans believe slavery to be wrong and the Democrats believe it to be right, for

I. The Republicans insist that slavery shall grow no larger.

II. The Democrats never treat slavery as wrong, for

a. When the proposition to abolish slavery in Missouri failed the Democrats rejoiced.

b. Douglas, unlike Clay, does not care whether slavery is voted up or down.

c. Douglas looks to no end of the institution of slavery.

d. Douglas has been the most prominent instrument in placing slavery upon “Brooks’ cotton-gin basis” where he openly confesses he has no desire to see it ended.

F. Judge Douglas’ position on the Dred Scott Decision is a doctrine of lawlessness, for

I. Before the Dred Scott decision Douglas said constantly, that whether or not the people of the territories could exclude slavery was a question for the Supreme Court to decide. Now he says it is not a question for the Supreme Court, but for the people.

II. Douglas’s doctrine of local police regulation is contrary to the Constitution, for

a. The territories cannot withhold the legislation which a man needs for the enjoyment of a right fixed in his favor by the Constitution.

III. If such a right as Judge Douglas holds to be a right really exists then the fugitive slave law can be made of no effect by the same kind of action.

Mr. Douglas’s Rejoinder

Proposition: Vote for Douglas and the Democratic party, because

A. Mr. Lincoln’s tendency is toward abolitionism.

B. Lincoln’s course in Congress with reference to the Mexican War was unpatriotic, for

I. He voted that it was unnecessary, unconstitutional, and unjust, after it had been begun.

323C. Refutation: Lincoln’s claim to be an old line Clay Whig is false, for

I. In a caucus in 1847 Lincoln wanted to throw Henry Clay overboard and take up General Taylor in his place.

II. Lincoln was the bitter enemy of Clay in the National Convention at Philadelphia.

III. Singleton says that Lincoln rejoiced greatly at Clay’s defeat.

IV. Lincoln never supported any of Clay’s policies, for

a. Lincoln voted forty-two times for the Wilmot Proviso, whereas Clay opposed it.

D. Refutation: Lincoln’s statement that the slavery question is the only thing that ever threatened the Union is false, for

I. Nullification threatened the Union in 1832.

II. In 1813 the Hartford Convention threatened the Union.

E. The fathers made this government divided into free and slave states, recognizing the right of each to decide all its local questions for itself, for

I. They did not abolish or establish slavery in any of the states.

II. Refutation: The statement that conditions have changed does not affect the question, for

a. Changed conditions do not change the principles of the government.

F. Lincoln advocates the identical principle asserted by George III and the Tories of the Revolution, for

I. He wants Congress to pass laws controlling the property and domestic concerns of the people in the territories, without their consent and against their will.

G. Douglas’s principle of local option on the slavery question is sufficient to preserve peace, for

I. It preserves peace on all other local questions.

Conclusion

The only remedy and safety is that we stand by the Constitution as our fathers made it, obey the laws as they are passed, while they stand the proper test, and sustain the decisions of the Supreme Court and the constituted authorities.

324

APPENDIX C Lincoln’s Address at Cooper Institute

[February 27, 1860]

Mr. President and Fellow-citizens of New York: The facts with which I shall deal this evening are mainly old and familiar; nor is there anything new in the general use I shall make of them. If there shall be any novelty, it will be in the mode of presenting the facts, and the inferences and observations following that presentation. In his speech last Autumn at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in the New York “Times,” Senator Douglas said:

“Our fathers, when they framed the government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now.”

I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. I so adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting-point for a discussion between Republicans and that wing of the Democracy headed by Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry: What was the understanding those fathers had of the question mentioned?

What is the frame of government under which we live? The answer must be, “The Constitution of the United States.” That Constitution consists of the original, framed in 1787, and under which the present government first went into operation, and twelve subsequently framed amendments, the first ten of which were framed in 1789.

Who were our fathers that framed the Constitution? I suppose the “thirty-nine” who signed the original instrument may be fairly called our fathers who framed that part of the present government. It is almost exactly true to say they framed it, and it is altogether true to say they fairly represented the opinion and sentiment of the whole nation at that time. Their names, being familiar to nearly all, and accessible to quite all, need not now be repeated.

I take these “thirty-nine,” for the present, as being “our fathers 325who framed the government under which we live.” What is the question which, according to the text, those fathers understood “just as well, and even better, than we do now”?

It is this: Does the proper division of local from Federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government to control as to slavery in our Federal Territories?

Upon this, Senator Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republicans the negative. This affirmation and denial form an issue; and this issue—this question—is precisely what the text declares our fathers understood “better than we”. Let us now inquire whether the “thirty-nine,” or any of them, ever acted upon this question; and if they did, how they acted upon it—how they expressed that better understanding. In 1784, three years before the Constitution, the United States then owning the Northwestern Territory, and no other, the Congress of the Confederation had before them the question of prohibiting slavery in that Territory, and four of the “thirty-nine” who afterward framed the Constitution were in that Congress, and voted on that question. Of these, Roger Sherman, Thomas Mifflin, and Hugh Williamson voted for the prohibition, thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from Federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in Federal territory. The other of the four, James McHenry, voted against the prohibition, showing that for some cause he thought it improper to vote for it.

In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the convention was in session framing it, and while the Northwestern Territory still was the only Territory owned by the United States, the same question of prohibiting slavery in the Territory again came before the Congress of the Confederation; and two more of the “thirty-nine” who afterward signed the Constitution were in that Congress, and voted on the question. They were William Blount and William Few; and they both voted for the prohibition—thus showing that in their understanding no line dividing local from Federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in Federal territory. This time the prohibition became a law, being part of what is now well known as the Ordinance of ’87.

The question of Federal control of slavery in the Territories seems not to have been directly before the convention which framed the original Constitution; and hence it is not recorded 326that the “thirty-nine,” or any of them, while engaged on that instrument, expressed any opinion on that precise question.

In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution, an act was passed to enforce the ordinance of ’87, including the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. The bill for this act was reported by one of the “thirty-nine”—Thomas Fitzsimmons, then a member of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania. It went through all its stages without a word of opposition, and finally passed both branches without ayes and nays, which is equivalent to a unanimous passage. In this Congress there were sixteen of the thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman, Wm. S. Johnson, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Thos. Fitzsimmons, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, William Patterson, George Clymer, Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll, and James Madison.

This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from Federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, properly forbade Congress to prohibit slavery in the Federal territory; else both their fidelity to correct principle, and their oath to support the Constitution, would have constrained them to oppose the prohibition.

Again, George Washington, another of the “thirty-nine,” was then President of the United States, and as such approved and signed the bill, thus completing its validity as a law, and thus showing that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from Federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in Federal territory.

No great while after the adoption of the original Constitution, North Carolina ceded to the Federal Government the country now constituting the State of Tennessee; and a few years later Georgia ceded that which now constitutes the States of Mississippi and Alabama. In both deeds of cession it was made a condition by the ceding States that the Federal government should not prohibit slavery in the ceded country. Besides this, slavery was then actually in the ceded country. Under these circumstances, Congress, on taking charge of these countries, did not absolutely prohibit slavery within them. But they did interfere with it—take control of it—even there, to a certain extent. In 1798 Congress organized the Territory of Mississippi. In the act of organization they prohibited the bringing of slaves into the Territory 327from any place without the United States, by fine, and giving freedom to slaves so brought. This act passed both branches of Congress without yeas and nays. In that Congress were three of the “thirty-nine” who framed the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, George Read, and Abraham Baldwin. They all probably voted for it. Certainly they would have placed their opposition to it upon record if, in their understanding, any line dividing local from Federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in Federal Territory.

In 1803 the Federal Government purchased the Louisiana country. Our former territorial acquisitions came from certain of our own States; but this Louisiana country was acquired from a foreign nation. In 1804 Congress gave a territorial organization to that part of it which now constitutes the State of Louisiana. New Orleans, lying within that part, was an old and comparatively large city. There were other considerable towns and settlements and slavery was extensively and thoroughly intermingled with the people. Congress did not, in the Territorial Act, prohibit slavery; but they did interfere with it—take control of it—in a more marked and extensive way than they did in the case of Mississippi. The substance of the provision therein made in relation to slaves was:

1st. That no slave should be imported into the Territory from foreign parts.

2d. That no slave should be carried into it who had been imported into the United States since the first day of May, 1798.

3d. That no slave should be carried into it, except by the owner, and for his own use as a settler; the penalty in all cases being a fine upon the violator of the law, and freedom to the slave.

This act also was passed without ayes or nays. In the Congress which passed it there were two of the “thirty-nine.” They were Abraham Baldwin and Jonathan Dayton. As stated in the case of Mississippi, it is probable they both voted for it. They would not have allowed it to pass without recording their opposition to it if, in their understanding, it violated either the line properly dividing local from Federal authority, or any provision of the Constitution.

In 1819–20 came and passed the Missouri question. Many votes were taken, by yeas and nays, in both branches of Congress, upon the various phases of the general question. Two of the 328“thirty-nine”—Rufus King and Charles Pinckney—were members of that Congress. Mr. King steadily voted for slavery prohibition and against all compromises, while Mr. Pinckney as steadily voted against slavery prohibition and against all compromises. By this, Mr. King showed that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from Federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, was violated by Congress prohibiting slavery in Federal territory; while Mr. Pinckney, by his votes, showed that, in his understanding, there was some sufficient reason for opposing such prohibition in that case.

The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the “thirty-nine,” or of any of them upon the direct issue, which I have been able to discover.

To enumerate the persons who thus acted as being four in 1784, two in 1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 1798, two in 1804, and two in 1819–20, there would be thirty of them. But this would be counting John Langdon, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus King, and George Read each twice, and Abraham Baldwin three times. The true number of those of the “thirty-nine” whom I have shown to have acted upon the question which, by the text, they understood better than we, is twenty-three, leaving sixteen not shown to have acted upon it in any way.

Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our thirty-nine fathers “who framed the government under which we live,” who have, upon their official responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the very question which the text affirms they “understood just as well, and even better, than we do now”; and twenty-one of them—a clear majority of the whole “thirty-nine”—so acting upon it as to make them guilty of gross political impropriety and wilful perjury if, in their understanding, any proper division between local and Federal authority, or anything in the Constitution they had made themselves, and sworn to support, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories. Thus the twenty-one acted; and, as actions speak louder than words, so actions under such responsibility speak still louder.

Two of the twenty-three voted against Congressional prohibition of slavery in the Federal Territories, in the instances in which they acted upon the question. But for what reasons they so voted is not known. They may have done so because they thought a proper division of local from Federal authority, or some provision or principle of the Constitution, stood in the way; or they may, 329without any such question, have voted against the prohibition on what appeared to them to be sufficient grounds of expediency. No one who has sworn to support the Constitution can conscientiously vote for what he understands to be an unconstitutional measure, however expedient he may think it; but one may and ought to vote against a measure which he deems constitutional if, at the same time, he deems it inexpedient. It, therefore, would be unsafe to set down even the two who voted against the prohibition as having done so because, in their understanding, any proper division of local from Federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in Federal territory.

The remaining sixteen of the “thirty-nine,” so far as I have discovered, have left no record of their understanding upon the direct question of Federal control of slavery in the Federal Territories. But there is much reason to believe that their understanding upon that question would not have appeared different from that of their twenty-three compeers, had it been manifested at all.

For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I have purposely omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any person, however distinguished, other than the thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution; and, for the same reason, I have also omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any of the “thirty-nine” even on any other phase of the general question of slavery. If we should look into their acts and declarations on those other phases, as the foreign slave-trade, and the morality and policy of slavery generally, it would appear to us that on the direct question of Federal control of slavery in Federal Territories, the sixteen, if they had acted at all, would probably have acted just as the twenty-three did. Among that sixteen were several of the most noted anti-slavery men of those times—as Dr. Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and Gouverneur Morris—while there was not one now known to have been otherwise, unless it may be John Rutledge, of South Carolina.

The sum of the whole is that of our thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution, twenty-one—a clear majority of the whole—certainly understood that no proper division of local from Federal Authority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control slavery in the Federal Territories; while all the rest had probably the same understanding. Such, unquestionably, was the understanding of our fathers who 330framed the original Constitution; and the text affirms that they understood the question “better than we.”

But, so far, I have been considering the understanding of the question manifested by the framers of the original Constitution. In and by the original instrument, a mode was provided for amending it; and, as I have already stated, the present frame of “the government under which we live” consists of that original, and twelve amendatory articles framed and adopted since. Those who now insist that Federal control of slavery in Federal Territories violates the Constitution, point us to the provisions which they suppose it thus violates; and, as I understand, they all fix upon provisions in these amendatory articles, and not in the original instrument. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, plant themselves upon the fifth amendment, which provides that no person shall be deprived of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law”; while Senator Douglas and his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the tenth amendment, providing that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution” “are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Now it so happens that these amendments were framed by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution—the identical Congress which passed the act, already mentioned, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. Not only was it the same Congress, but they were the identical, same individual men who, at the same session, and at the same time within the session, had under consideration, and in progress toward maturity, these constitutional amendments, and this act prohibiting slavery in all the territory the nation then owned. The constitutional amendments were introduced before, and passed after the act enforcing the ordinance of ’87; so that, during the whole pendency of the act to enforce the ordinance, the constitutional amendments were also pending.

The seventy-six members of that Congress, including sixteen of the framers of the original Constitution, as before stated, were pre-eminently our fathers who framed that part of “the government under which we live” which is now claimed as forbidding the Federal Government to control slavery in the Federal Territories.

Is it not a little presumptuous in anyone at this day to affirm that the two things which that Congress deliberately framed, 331and carried to maturity at the same time, are absolutely inconsistent with each other? And does not such affirmation become impudently absurd when coupled with the other affirmation, from the same mouth, that those who did the two things alleged to be inconsistent, understood whether they really were inconsistent better than we—better than he who affirms that they are inconsistent?

It is surely safe to assume that the thirty-nine framers of the original Constitution, and the seventy-six members of the Congress which framed the amendments thereto, taken together, do certainly include those who may be fairly called “our fathers who framed the government under which we live.” And so assuming, I defy any man to show that any one of them ever, in his whole life, declared that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from Federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories. I go a step further. I defy anyone to show that any living man in the world ever did, prior to the beginning of the present century (and I might almost say prior to the beginning of the last half of the present century), declare that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from Federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories. To those who now so declare I give not only “our fathers who framed the government under which we live,” but with them all other living men within the century in which it was framed, among whom to search, and they shall not be able to find the evidence of a single man agreeing with them.

Now, and here, let me guard a little against being misunderstood. I do not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did. To do so would be to discard all the lights of current experience—to reject all progress, all improvement. What I do say is that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we should do so upon evidence so conclusive, and argument so clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand; and most surely not in a case whereof we ourselves declare they understood the question better than we.

If any man at this day sincerely believes that a proper division of local from Federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the 332Federal Territories, he is right to say so, and to enforce his position by all truthful evidence and fair argument which he can. But he has no right to mislead others, who have less access to history, and less leisure to study it, into the false belief that “our fathers who framed the government under which we live” were of the same opinion—thus substituting falsehood and deception for truthful evidence and fair argument. If any man at this day sincerely believes “our fathers who framed the government under which we live” used and applied principles, in other cases, which ought to have led them to understand that a proper division of local from Federal authority, or some part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories, he is right to say so. But he should, at the same time, brave the responsibility of declaring that, in his opinion, he understands their principles better than they did themselves; and especially should he not shirk that responsibility by asserting that they “understood the question just as well, and even better, than we do now.”

But enough! Let all who believe that “our fathers who framed the government under which we live understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now,” speak as they spoke, and act as they acted upon it. This is all Republicans ask—all Republicans desire—in relation to slavery. As those fathers marked it, so let it be again marked, as an evil not to be extended, but to be tolerated and protected only because of and so far as its actual presence amongst us makes that toleration and protection a necessity. Let all the guaranties those fathers gave it be not grudgingly, but fully and fairly maintained. For this Republicans contend, and with this, so far as I know or believe, they will be content.

And now, if they would listen—as I suppose they will not—I would address a few words to the Southern people.

I would say to them: You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just people; and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any other people. Still, when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us as reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to “Black Republicans.” In all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of “Black Republicanism,” as the first thing to be attended to. Indeed, such 333condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite—license, so to speak—among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all. Now can you or not be prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify.

You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the burden of proof is upon you. You produce your proof; and what is it? Why, that our party has no existence in your section—gets no votes in your section. The fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If it does, then in case we should, without change of principle, begin to get votes in your section, we should thereby cease to be sectional. You cannot escape this conclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide by it? If you are, you will probably soon find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall get votes in your section this very year. You will then begin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof does not touch the issue. The fact that we get no votes in your section is a fact of your making, and not of ours. And if there be fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains so until you show that we repel you by some wrong principle or practice. If we do repel you by any wrong principle or practice, the fault is ours; but this brings you to where you ought to have started—to a discussion of the right or wrong of our principle. If our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for any other object, then our principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are justly opposed and denounced as such. Meet us, then, on the question of whether our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section; and so meet us as if it were possible that something may be said on your side. Do you accept the challenge? No! Then you really believe that the principle which “our fathers who framed the government under which we live” thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again and again, upon their official oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as to demand your condemnation without a moment’s consideration.

Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against sectional parties given by Washington in his Farewell Address. Less than eight years before Washington gave that warning, he had, as President of the United States, approved and signed an act of Congress enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory, which act embodied the policy of the government 334upon that subject up to and at the very moment he penned that warning; and about one year after he penned it, he wrote Lafayette that he considered that prohibition a wise measure, expressing in the same connection his hope that we should at some time have a confederacy of free States.

Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, or in our hands against you? Could Washington himself speak, would he cast the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon you, who repudiate it? We respect that warning of Washington, and we commend it to you, together with his example pointing to the right application of it.

But you say you are conservative—eminently conservative—while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by “our fathers who framed the government under which we live”; while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave-trade; some for a Congressional slave code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit slavery within their limits; some for maintaining slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the “gur-reat pur-rinciple” that “if one man would enslave another, no third man should object,” fantastically called “popular sovereignty,” but never a man among you is in favor of Federal prohibition of slavery in Federal Territories, according to the practice of “our fathers who framed the government under which we live.” Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge of destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations.

Again, you say we have made the slavery question more prominent than it formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more prominent, but we deny that we made it so. It was not we, but you, who discarded the old policy of the fathers. We resisted, and 335still resist, your innovation; and thence comes the greater prominence of the question. Would you have that question reduced to its former proportions? Go back to that old policy. What has been will be again, under the same conditions. If you would have the peace of the old times, re-adopt the precepts and policy of the old times.

You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it; and what is your proof? Harper’s Ferry! John Brown!! John Brown was no Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his Harper’s Ferry enterprise. If any member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know it or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are inexcusable for not designating the man and proving the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable for asserting it, and especially for persisting in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make the proof. You need not be told that persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true, is simply malicious slander.

Some of you admit that no Republican designedly aided or encouraged the Harper’s Ferry affair, but still insist that our doctrines and declarations necessarily lead to such results. We do not believe it. We know we hold no doctrine, and make no declaration, which were not held to and made by “our fathers who framed the government under which we live.” You never dealt fairly by us in relation to this affair. When it occurred, some important State elections were near at hand, and you were in evident glee with the belief that, by charging the blame upon us, you could get an advantage of us in those elections. The elections came, and your expectations were not quite fulfilled. Every Republican man knew that, as to himself at least, your charge was a slander, and he was not much inclined by it to cast his vote in your favor. Republican doctrines and declarations are accompanied with a continual protest against any interference whatever with your slaves, or with you about your slaves. Surely, this does not encourage them to revolt. True, we do, in common with “our fathers who framed the government under which we live,” declare our belief that slavery is wrong; but the slaves do not hear us declare even this. For anything we say or do, the slaves would scarcely know there is a Republican party. I believe they would not, in fact, generally know it but for your misrepresentations of us in their hearing. In your political contests among yourselves each faction charges the other with sympathy with Black Republicanism; 336and then, to give point to the charge, defines Black Republicanism to simply be insurrection, blood, and thunder among the slaves.

Slave insurrections are no more common now than they were before the Republican party was organized. What induced the Southampton insurrection, twenty-eight years ago, in which at least three times as many lives were lost as at Harper’s Ferry? You can scarcely stretch your very elastic fancy to the conclusion that Southampton was “got up by Black Republicanism.” In the present state of things in the United States, I do not think a general, or even a very extensive, slave insurrection is possible. The indispensable concert of action cannot be attained. The slaves have no means of rapid communication; nor can incendiary freemen, black or white, supply it. The explosive materials are everywhere in parcels; but there neither are, nor can be supplied, the indispensable connecting trains.

Much is said by Southern people about the affection of slaves for their masters and mistresses; and a part of it, at least, is true. A plot for an uprising could scarcely be devised and communicated to twenty individuals before some one of them, to save the life of a favorite master or mistress, would divulge it. This is the rule; and the slave revolution in Hayti was not an exception to it, but a case occurring under peculiar circumstances. The gunpowder plot of British history, though not connected with slaves, was more in point. In that case, only about twenty were admitted to the secret; and yet one of them, in his anxiety to save a friend betrayed the plot to that friend, and, by consequence, averted the calamity. Occasional poisonings from the kitchen, and open or stealthy assassinations in the field, and local revolts extending to a score or so, will continue to occur as the natural results of slavery; but no general insurrection of slaves, as I think, can happen in this country for a long time. Whoever much fears, or much hopes, for such an event, will be alike disappointed.

In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, “It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up.”

Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of emancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia; 337and, as to the power of emancipation, I speak of the slaveholding States only. The Federal Government, however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the extension of the institution—the power to insure that a slave insurrection shall never occur on any American soil which is now free from slavery.

John Brown’s effort was peculiar. It was not a slave insurrection. It was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves, in which the slaves refused to participate. In fact, it was so absurd that the slaves, with all their ignorance, saw plainly enough it could not succeed. That affair, in its philosophy, corresponds with the many attempts, related in history, at the assassination of kings and emperors. An enthusiast broods over the oppression of a people till he fancies himself commissioned by Heaven to liberate them. He ventures the attempt which ends in little else than his own execution. Orsini’s attempt on Louis Napoleon, and John Brown’s attempt at Harper’s Ferry, were, in their philosophy, precisely the same. The eagerness to cast blame on old England in the one case, and on New England in the other, does not disprove the sameness of the two things.

And how much would it avail you, if you could by the use of John Brown, Helper’s book, and the like, break up the Republican organization? Human action can be modified to some extent, but human nature cannot be changed. There is a judgment and a feeling against slavery in this nation, which cast at least a million and a half of votes. You cannot destroy that judgment and feeling—that sentiment—by breaking up the political organization which rallies around it. You can scarcely scatter and disperse an army which has been formed into order in the face of your heaviest fire; but if you could, how much would you gain by forcing the sentiment which created it out of the peaceful channel of the ballot-box into some other channel? What would that other channel probably be? Would the number of John Browns be lessened or enlarged by the operation?

But you will break up the Union rather than submit to a denial of your constitutional rights.

That has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would be palliated, if not fully justified, were we proposing, by the mere force of numbers, to deprive you of some right plainly written down in the Constitution. But we are proposing no such thing.

When you make these declarations you have a specific and well-understood allusion to an assumed constitutional right of 338yours to take slaves into the Federal Territories, and to hold them there as property. But no such right is specially written in the Constitution. That instrument is literally silent about any such right. We, on the contrary, deny that such a right has any existence in the Constitution, even by implication.

Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the government, unless you be allowed to construe and force the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events.

This, plainly stated, is your language. Perhaps you will say the Supreme Court has decided the disputed constitutional question in your favor. Not quite so. But waiving the lawyer’s distinction between dictum and decision the court has decided the question for you in a sort of way. The court has substantially said, it is your constitutional right to take slaves into the Federal Territories, and to hold them there as property. When I say the decision was made in a sort of way, I mean it was made in a divided court, by a bare majority of the judges, and they not quite agreeing with one another in the reasons for making it; that it is so made as that its avowed supporters disagree with one another about its meaning, and that it was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact—the statement in the opinion that “the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution.”

An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of property in a slave is not “distinctly and expressly affirmed” in it. Bear in mind, the judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that such right is impliedly affirmed in the Constitution; but they pledge their veracity that it is “distinctly and expressly” affirmed there—“distinctly,” that is, not mingled with anything else—“expressly,” that is in words meaning just that, without the aid of any inference, and susceptible of no other meaning.

If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that such right is affirmed in the instrument by implication, it would be open to others to show that neither the word “slave” nor “slavery” is to be found in the Constitution, nor the word “property” even, in any connection with language alluding to the thing slave, or slavery; and that wherever in that instrument the slave is alluded to, he is called a “person”; and wherever his master’s legal right in relation to him is alluded to, it is spoken of as “service or labor which may be due”—as a debt payable in service or labor. Also it would be open to show, by contemporaneous history, that this 339mode of alluding to slaves and slavery, instead of speaking of them, was employed on purpose to exclude from the Constitution the idea that there could be property in man.

To show all this is easy and certain.

When this obvious mistake of the judges shall be brought to their notice, is it not reasonable to expect that they will withdraw the mistaken statement, and reconsider the conclusion based upon it?

And then it is to be remembered that “our fathers who framed the government under which we live”—the men who made the Constitution—decided this same constitutional question in our favor long ago; decided it without division among themselves when making the decision; without division among themselves about the meaning of it after it was made, and, so far as any evidence is left, without basing it upon any mistaken statement of facts.

Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this government unless such a court decision as yours is shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, “Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!”

To be sure, what the robber demanded of me—my money—was my own; and I had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote is my own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in principle.

A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony one with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. Even though the Southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly can. Judging by all they say and do, and by the subject and nature of their controversy with us, let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy them.

Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered to them? We know they will not. In all their present 340complaints against us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We so know, because we know we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation.

The question recurs, What will satisfy them? Simply this: we must not only let them alone, but we must somehow convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.

These natural and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly—done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated—we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas’s new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.

I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way. Most of them would probably say to us, “Let us alone; do nothing to us, and say what you please about slavery.” But we do let them alone—have never disturbed them—so that, after all, it is what we say which dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease saying.

I am also aware they have not as yet in terms demanded the overthrow of our free-State constitutions. Yet those constitutions declare the wrong of slavery, with more solemn emphasis than do all other sayings against it; and when all these other sayings shall have been silenced, the overthrow of these constitutions will be demanded, and nothing be left to resist the demand. It is 341nothing to the contrary that they do not demand the whole of this just now. Demanding what they do, and for the reason they do, they can voluntarily stop nowhere short of this consummation. Holding, as they do, that slavery is morally right and socially elevating, they cannot cease to demand a full national recognition of it as a legal right and a social blessing.

Nor can we justifiably withhold this on any ground save our conviction that slavery is wrong. If slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, and constitutions against it are themselves wrong, and should be silenced and swept away. If it is right, we cannot justly object to its nationality—its universality; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist upon its extension—its enlargement. All they ask we could readily grant, if we thought slavery right; all we ask they could as readily grant, if they thought it wrong. Their thinking it right and our thinking it wrong is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition as being right; but thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? Can we cast our votes with their view, and against our own? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we do this?

Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the national Territories, and to overrun us here in these free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored—contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong: vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man; such as a policy of “don’t care” on a question about which all true men do care: such as Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance; such as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said and undo what Washington did.

Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the government, nor of dungeons to ourselves. Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith let us to the end dare to do our duty as we understand it.

342

APPENDIX D Memorandum of Agreement for High School Debating League under the Direction of a College or University

The Bangor High School, the Bar Harbor High School, the Bucksport East Maine Conference Seminary, and the Foxcroft Academy, do hereby agree to form an Interscholastic Debating League. The purpose of this League is to hold debates subject to the following conditions:

I

The executive committee of the League shall consist of the principal of each of the above-named institutions and of the Debate Coach at the University of Maine. This committee shall meet once a year at such time and place as agreed upon by the schools and the University. It shall have charge of all matters pertaining to the League, subject to the provisions herein contained.

II

The League shall hold two preliminary debates and one final debate each year, according to the following plan:

The high schools and academies composing this League shall be divided into two equal groups. Each group shall hold a preliminary debate as herein provided. The two winning schools shall then meet in a final debate to be held at the University of Maine. The executive committee shall determine at its first meeting the time, place, and method of rotation to be observed in holding contests for succeeding years.

III

The questions for debate shall be selected in the following manner:

(1) For the preliminary contests. On or before October first, each school at which a debate is to be held shall submit to the visiting school a list of three propositions. The visiting school 343shall thereupon select one of these propositions and choose the side which it wishes to defend. On or before October fifteenth, notice of this selection must be communicated to the school at which the debate is to be held.

(2) For the final contest. Immediately upon the announcement of a decision in a preliminary contest, the principal of the winning school shall mail notice of the result to the Debate Coach of the University of Maine. The Debate Coach shall determine by lot the school which is to propose the list of propositions to its opponent. Notice of this fact shall immediately be sent to the school thus designated. This school shall prepare immediately a list of three propositions and submit them to its opponent. Within three days the opposing school shall mail to the other school an announcement of the proposition which it has selected from the list proposed and shall state the side of the proposition which it wishes to defend.

IV

The judges for both the preliminary and final contests shall be selected in the following manner:

Four weeks before the contest, the school which has proposed the list of propositions shall submit to its opponent, a list of twelve judges. The opposing school shall select three persons from this list and return their names to the other school. This school shall immediately attempt to secure the persons so named to act as judges. If any or all of the persons selected refuse the invitation to serve, the proposing school shall ask the visiting school to select substitute judges from the list. The school making the final selection of judges may require at any time, a new list of names from the opposing school. No school shall propose as judge any person who is financially or officially interested in, or a graduate or former student of, such school.

V

In the preliminary contests the visiting school shall bear all expenses of its own team. The school at which the contest is held shall bear the expenses of procuring judges and shall have charge of all local arrangements.

In the final contest each participating school shall bear the expense of its own team and one-half the expense of the judges.

344

VI

Each school shall select for its team three representatives and an alternate, but no one shall be chosen who is not a bona fide student of the institution which he represents.

VII

Each debater shall be allowed two speeches, one of ten (10) minutes duration, the other of five (5) minutes. The first series of speeches shall be opened by the affirmative, and shall alternate between affirmative and negative speeches. The second series shall be opened by the negative, and shall alternate between negative and affirmative speeches.

VIII

In preparing for any contest, each school is entitled to three visits from a student of Argumentation and Debate in the University of Maine. This student Coach will give such assistance as is asked for in the training of the debaters representing each school. No charge will be made for this service, but each school must bear the expense of the student sent to coach its team.

IX

In each contest the judges shall be instructed to award the decision on the merits of the argument as presented in the debate, and not upon the merits of the question. It is understood that effectiveness of style and manner of delivery are to be considered.

X

This agreement may be amended at any time by the unanimous vote of the executive committee.

XI

At the close of the final contest, the President of the University of Maine, or some one on his behalf, will present to the winning team the University of Maine Interscholastic Debating Cup. The name of the winning school and the year of the contest will be engraved upon the cup. This cup will be kept in the possession of the winning school until within one week of the next annual 345contest. At this time it shall be returned to the University of Maine to be awarded to the school winning the final contest for that year.

XII

At the close of the final contest, the President of the University of Maine, or some one on his behalf, will present to the debater whose work is regarded by the judges as the most effective, a scholarship to the value of $30.00 good for one year in the above-named institution.

XIII

This agreement shall be in full force and operation when one of the two copies herewith submitted to each of the four institutions composing the League is signed by the principal of the institution and mailed to the Head of the Department of English at the University of Maine.

346

APPENDIX E Debating Agreement for a League Composed of Five Institutions

CONSTITUTION OF THE CENTRAL DEBATING CIRCUIT OF AMERICA

ARTICLE I

Object.—The object of this organization shall be to foster interest in debate by holding an annual contest in December on the Friday evening one week before the opening of the holiday recess.

ARTICLE II

Debating Boards.—Each university shall create a debating board a majority of whose members shall be of the faculty. The members of this board shall be chosen annually as each university may deem wise. The debating board shall have general supervision of all debating matters of the league affecting its university.

ARTICLE III

Questions.—On April first each university shall submit to each of the others a question properly stated for debate. On April fifteenth each university shall send the five questions to each of the others arranged in the order of its choice. The question ranked highest by all the universities shall be debated by all the teams. In the case of a tie the selection from the tying questions shall be made by the President of Yale University.

ARTICLE IV

Time and Order of Speaking.—Each speaker shall have seventeen minutes; twelve minutes for opening and five for rebuttal, but the order of rebuttal speeches on either side may be changed at the wish of the speakers on that side. The negative shall lead in the rebuttal. The visiting team shall support the negative.

347 ARTICLE V

Judges.

(Contests for 1906–1907 and 1910–1911)

Contesting states. Place of contest. Residence of Judge.

Minnesota Iowa City Illinois

Iowa Nebraska

Nebraska Urbana Iowa

Illinois Wisconsin

Iowa Madison Illinois

Wisconsin Minnesota

Illinois Minneapolis Iowa

Minnesota Wisconsin

Wisconsin Lincoln Iowa

Nebraska

(Contests for 1907–1908 and 1911–1912)

Illinois Iowa City Minnesota

Iowa Nebraska

Wisconsin Urbana Iowa

Illinois

Minnesota Madison Illinois

Wisconsin Iowa

Nebraska Minneapolis Wisconsin

Minnesota

Iowa Lincoln Minnesota

Nebraska

(Contests for 1908–1909 and 1912–1913)

Wisconsin Iowa City Illinois

Iowa Nebraska

Minnesota Urbana Wisconsin

Illinois Iowa

Nebraska Madison Illinois

Wisconsin Minnesota

Iowa Minneapolis Wisconsin

Minnesota Nebraska

Illinois Lincoln Iowa

Nebraska

348(Contests for 1909–1910 and 1913–1914)

Nebraska Iowa City Minnesota

Iowa Illinois

Iowa Urbana Wisconsin

Illinois

Illinois Madison Minnesota

Wisconsin

Wisconsin Minneapolis Nebraska

Minnesota Iowa

Minnesota Lincoln Iowa

Nebraska

On April first each university shall submit judges according to the above schedule.

When a single state furnishes the judges for any contest it shall submit a list of 24 names to each of the two competing universities. These lists shall be duplicates.

When two states furnish the judges they shall each submit a list of 12 names.

When a state furnishes judges for two or more contests it shall make up its several lists as impartially as possible with reference to the distribution of able men.

Convenience and economy for the attending judges shall be a factor in their nomination in so far as may be consistent with the choice of able men.

Not later than the first of October preceding the contest the visiting university shall send to the entertaining university a list of six candidates for judges chosen from the proper rolls. Not later than the same date the entertaining university shall send to its opponent a list of twelve judges chosen from the proper rolls. Each university shall arrange the opponent’s list of candidates in the order of its choice.

Each university shall have the right to challenge any or all of the number of the candidates submitted by its opponent on presentation of good and sufficient reason. The challenge list, together with objections, shall be returned at once to the sender. 349The list shall be completed and re-submitted not later than October twentieth.

It is further understood that any person recommended for judge who is a relative, actual or prospective, of any contestant, or who is an alumnus of either university, or who holds or has held, any official relation with either university may be rejected.

The secretary of the entertaining university shall notify the judges by a joint note, the form of which shall be as follows;

The state universities of (name) and (name) will hold a joint debate at (place) on (date). The specific wording of the proposition for debate is, “Resolved, that &c—

We shall consider ourselves especially favored if you can be with us at (place) to hear and judge this contest. (Insert a sentence here stating the names of the other judges who have been invited or who consented to serve.)

We shall of course meet your entire expense. Trusting that we may have an early and favorable reply, we remain,

Respectfully yours,

A. B., University of ————

C. D., University of ————

The entertaining university shall sign the names of both secretaries to the letter and shall enclose a stamped envelop addressed to each for the reply.

Before the contest the judges shall be entertained at a hotel and every semblance of an effort to influence them will be regarded as dishonorable conduct.

The secretary will secure two judges from the list of the entertaining university and one from the list of the opponent adhering strictly to the order recommended by the respective universities. But if any name or names should be found on both lists they shall be first invited to serve.

The university submitting a list of names shall always report on the qualifications of the judges in the following respects; I. Occupation. II. Where educated. III. Politics. IV. Religion. V. Official relations with any university of the league at any time.

ARTICLE VI

Instructions to Judges.—Each judge shall be instructed to decide for himself what constitutes effective debate, except that he shall consider both thought and delivery. Without consultation 350he shall vote affirmative or negative on the merits of the debate, not on the merits of the question. He shall sign, seal and deliver his vote to the presiding officer who shall open the votes and announce the decision.

ARTICLE VII

Expenses.—Each university shall pay all the expenses of its own debaters. All other expenses of the contest shall be paid by the entertaining university.

ARTICLE VIII

Conduct of the Debates.—In the contests of this league all communication with the debaters, by prompting or otherwise, is forbidden; also the introduction of both private correspondence and charts is debarred.

ARTICLE IX

Amendments.—This constitution may be amended by the authorized representatives of the universities at any special meeting or by correspondence providing twenty days notice be given of the changes desired.

ARTICLE X

Schedule.—The schedule for debates shall be as follows:

First Year Minnesota shall send a team to Iowa City

Nebraska “ “ “ “ “ Urbana

Iowa “ “ “ “ “ Madison

Illinois “ “ “ “ “ Minneapolis

Wisconsin “ “ “ “ “ Lincoln

Second Year Minnesota “ “ “ “ “ Madison

Nebraska “ “ “ “ “ Minneapolis

Iowa “ “ “ “ “ Lincoln

Illinois “ “ “ “ “ Iowa City

Wisconsin “ “ “ “ “ Urbana

Third Year Minnesota “ “ “ “ “ Urbana

Nebraska “ “ “ “ “ Madison

Iowa “ “ “ “ “ Minneapolis

Illinois “ “ “ “ “ Lincoln

Wisconsin “ “ “ “ “ Iowa City

351Fourth Year Minnesota “ “ “ “ “ Lincoln

Nebraska “ “ “ “ “ Iowa City

Iowa “ “ “ “ “ Urbana

Illinois “ “ “ “ “ Madison

Wisconsin “ “ “ “ “ Minneapolis

352

APPENDIX F Memorandum of Agreement for a Triangular Debating League

Debating Agreement between Indiana University, Ohio State University, and the University of Illinois

(Adopted by the representatives of the three institutions at Columbus, June 17, 1905)

Article 1.—This organization shall consist of the Indiana University, Ohio State University, and the University of Illinois, and shall be known as the State University Debating League.

Article 2.—Its affairs shall be conducted by an executive committee consisting of one member of the Faculty of each institution, to be selected by that institution.

(a) One of these shall act as President, one as Vice President, and one as Secretary and Treasurer, each holding office for one year.

(b) The three offices shall be filled by the representatives of the three institutions in rotation in the following order: 1905–1906 Presidency, Ohio State University, Vice Presidency, Indiana University, Secretary and Treasurership, University of Illinois; 1906–1907 Presidency, Indiana University, Vice Presidency, University of Illinois, Secretary and Treasurership, Ohio State University; 1907–1908 Presidency, University of Illinois, Vice Presidency, Ohio State University, Secretary and Treasurership, Indiana University; and thereafter in the same rotation.

Article 3.—The debates shall be held on the second Friday in March—one at Bloomington, Indiana, one at Columbus, Ohio, and one at Urbana, Illinois. In the year 1905–1906 the teams shall come together as follows: University of Illinois and Indiana University at Bloomington; Indiana University and Ohio State University at Columbus; Ohio State University and University of Illinois at Urbana. In the year 1906–1907 Ohio State University and Indiana University at Bloomington; University of Illinois and 353Ohio State University at Columbus; Indiana University and University of Illinois at Urbana; and thereafter in the same biennial rotation.