Lincoln’s 1859 Campaign Speech at Cincinnati & The 2016 Presidential Election
Note: Contains Full Text of Speech
In order to understand the 2016 presidential election, it is important to reflect on some of the great speeches that inspired movements. Usually, a leader who is able to communicate to the greatest number of people during times when a national is polarized will be the most successful. The most successful campaigns have strategic narratives where the messenger is as important as the message. In a democratic republic, we elect politicians to represent the people and lead by example. In times of economic uncertainty and great polarization, it is more important that our representatives take on a symbolic role. In order for our system to work, we must know who the person that we are voting for is-so we can predict their behavior. Lincoln’s speech in Cincinnati, while not one of the most popular, is the speech where he identified himself and clarified his message. Hillary Clinton has been alluding to Lincoln in her speeches, however, she has been making false comparisons. Interestingly, Donald Trump seems to be more like Lincoln than she. It was Lincoln, who like Trump, had moral beliefs that conflicted from his beliefs about the law. Like Lincoln, Trump believes that we all need to follow the law, and the same law; the law cannot be different in one place or only apply to one group of people the way it does for another group of people. Hillary Clinton believes that citizens need to conform or that policies will be created to accommodate each individual marginalized group — however, in reality, those are exactly the policies that Lincoln was against.
Hillary Clinton shifts responsibility onto the people instead of the law. Much like Douglas in the Lincoln-Douglas debates who believes that the popular vote is what should decide slavery, and that it is not a right, Hillary Clinton believes that she is not responsible for clarifying the law. In other words, she doesn’t understand her role as messenger and symbol of the law. She is the opposite of what Lincoln believed in. In her speech in Lincoln’s hometown, she said “This election will decide who is American and who is not” which is similar to the positions held by Douglas. Her opponent, Donald Trump, expresses similar sentiment to Lincoln who believed that every state must have the same laws. Many forget that Lincoln held beliefs that today would be considered morally repugnant. He was not against the institution of slavery, he believed that “Negros are not born to be the same as white men and they should not marry our women and do not possess our intellect, however they deserve to eat food and have clean water.” But, what he did believe was that the north and the south should not have a different set of laws regarding economic principles. Douglas wanted to force the people to decide which way to govern, that they should vote on what to do, Lincoln believed that all men deserve the same rights and that policies should not voted on or discussed regarding the basic rights of men. If each state got to decide what it wanted to do, than the United States would cease to exist. Hillary gave a speech to small business owners where she states that small banks will have looser regulations than large banks, but fails to acknowledge how one will distinguish oneself as a small bank over a large bank. This combined with Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Supreme Court ruling regarding voting rights puts our republic in a precarious position. The court ruled that one vote equals one vote because they decided that in order to protect the rights of all people, we must make sure that we protect the rights of people who do not vote as much as the rights of people who do vote. That ruling is a basic misinterpretation of the federalist papers, and espouses the point of views that Douglas held. When we go back to this way of thinking than we have a system that only helps people who can afford to vote or identify themselves as a group of potentially disenfranchised voters. While this may seem like a digression from my main point, it is the subtlety with which Hillary Clinton speaks and sends her messages that is extremely interesting. Only a seasoned politician would know to shift responsibility in such a calculated way. What’s more, she conjures up the image of Lincoln when talking about terrorism, the economy and racism as if to say “if you do not vote for me, we are going to have a civil war.” Her ability to veil dog whistle politics under the guise of American values and institutions, to say that “America will not survive if you do not vote for me” to potentially less educated groups of voters, by threatening them with structure and institutions with her stature and experience, is racist and abusive in and of itself. The implications of someone like her taking office is very dangerous. It is also extremely shocking to see members of the media allowing false comparisons and dog whistle politics. Only the trained eye would notice this type of rhetoric.
He knew that those policies only benefited a few. In order to understand the difference, it is important to analyze primary texts and ask the five questions: Who, What, When, Where and Why. In addition to removing bias. Below, I analyze Lincoln’s speech followed by the entire text of his address in Ohio.
The Cincinnati speech placed Lincoln in a position in which the messenger was as important as the messenger. Lincoln went back to work after his famous “House Divided” speech, for financial reasons. He was labeled toxic by the Democratic press and as an extreme republican stirring up anti-democratic sentiment. In fact, some news organizations placed him in the same category as William Seward, the other front runner who was known for his secessionist views and speech “Irrepressible Conflict.” “To adopt Seward and Lincoln’s principles that there must be an eternal war between the free and slave States, [the Republicans] would not yet have the courage,” an upstate New York Democratic newspaper wrote of Lincoln, “and on that issue they dare not go even before their own fanatical followers.” Lincoln’s path to the presidency was made difficult by propaganda that labeled him as untrustworthy and inexperienced.
Perhaps it was his former foe, or the constant belittling by the press, but Lincoln was stirred into action. In the first days of September Lincoln’s old nemesis, Senator Stephen A. Douglas, spurred him to action. In the September issue of Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, Douglas published a lengthy article in which he made the brazen claim that allowing or disallowing slavery to extend into the territories based on the vote of its citizens — the tenets of popular sovereignty — was a concept that matched the intent of the Founding Fathers. Douglas’s article was long and tedious, but it also was a savvy mode of political propaganda to launch his presidential bid for the Democratic Party and to present him as a politician planted firmly between the extremist views regarding slavery. It also forced Lincoln to craft a new speech to counter the updated claims of Douglas in Harper’s.
Not to be disregarded were Lincoln’s presidential ambitions and his understanding of the press. The Ohio trip afforded Lincoln the opportunity to appear as a statesman for the Republican Party while he simultaneously launched his bid for the White House.
Lincoln began the Cincinnati speech that night by tackling Douglas’s criticism of his House Divided speech as a mischaracterization of Lincoln’s support of abolition. After repeating the controversial sentences of that 1858 speech, Lincoln explained, “I declared then, and I now re-declare, that I have as little inclination to so interfere with the institution of slavery where it now exists … as I believe we have no power to do so.” Acknowledging to his audience that Douglas had succeeded in painting him with the same clashing colors applied to Senator Seward’s Irrepressible Conflict speech, Lincoln wrested the brush from Douglas and assailed the Little Giant’s immoral position of claiming no position on slavery. “There is not a public man in the United States, I believe, with the exception of Senator Douglas, who has not at some time of his life, declared his opinion whether the thing is right or wrong,” declared Lincoln.
At this point Lincoln employed a tactic tailor-made for Cincinnati. With the nearby Ohio River coursing across the border of the city and separating North from South, Lincoln informed his audience that he would model his remarks as if he were addressing Kentuckians across the river. By pretending to speak to an all-Kentucky crowd, Lincoln could highlight Douglas’s hypocrisy to his Northern audience while at the same time present a congenial case as if he was addressing all the residents of slaveholding states.
Lincoln left no doubt that this speech was all about Douglas. He tossed out his name fifty-eight times during the course of the speech, essentially treating it as one of the 1858 debates. Douglas had spoken in Cincinnati on September 9, but Lincoln used the magazine article as the text for his counterclaims (He apparently did not have a copy of Douglas’s Cincinnati speech to prepare his remarks). Lincoln’s labors against Douglas also followed a strategy to marginalize the Little Giant to Northern Democrats. At the same time, Lincoln had been concerned that Douglas would appeal to Republicans for his break with President Buchanan over the Lecompton Constitution, the acceptance over his views of popular sovereignty, and the potential that he would be forced out of the Democratic Party if the national convention imposed him to endorse the slave code as part of the party platform. Thus, Cincinnati proved the staging ground to expose the folly of Douglas’s positions.
In the guise of speaking to “Kentuckians,” Lincoln continued to denigrate Douglas’s immorality regarding slavery. Lincoln claimed that Douglas wanted Northerners to adopt his detached opinion to allow another Dred Scott-like decision to permit slavery to permeate into the current slave-free states of the North. Lincoln stressed that “whenever your minds are brought to adopt his argument, as surely you will have reached the conclusion that although slavery is not profitable in Ohio, if any man wants it, it is wrong to him not to let him have it.”
Perhaps the most stirring moment of the speech was marked not by soaring rhetoric by Lincoln but by an unexpected change-of-pace that astounded his audience. Continuing his tactic of addressing Kentuckians, Lincoln said that they were stuck with Douglas as their candidate, for they would be beaten if they did not take him, and the same result would occur if they did nominate him. “We, the Republicans and others forming the opposition of the country, intend to ‘stand by our guns,’ to be patient and firm, and in the long run to beat you whether you take him or not,” warned Lincoln as he turned to a partisan stump speaker. In less than a minute, he declared his intent to “beat you” five times, followed by asking his audience what the opposition would do to the Kentuckians after they defeated them. “We mean to treat you, as near as we possibly can, like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison treated you. We mean to leave you alone….”
The crowd did not expect this abrupt switch from a partisan to a statesman, and it erupted in cheers as Lincoln completely reverted back to the middle-ground message he had consistently been advocating, not only throughout the evening but since the mid 1850s — preserving slavery where it constitutionally was allotted. He told the Kentuckians that aligning with Douglas had turned them into “degenerated men,” but the principles of the Founders and the Compromisers allowed them their constitutional rights — including the right to keep slaves. “We mean to remember that you are as good as we,” Lincoln preached in his most conciliatory tone; “that there is no difference between us other than the difference of circumstances. We mean to recognize and bear in mind that always that you have as good hearts in your bosoms as other people, or as we claim to have, and treat you accordingly.”
Cincinnati also was a rare moment for Lincoln to discuss the possibility of secession and civil warfare in America. “I often hear it intimated that you mean to divide the Union whenever a Republican, or anything like it, is elected President of the United States,” declared Lincoln. “Well, then, I want to know what you are going to do with your half of it?” He reminded the Kentuckians that removing themselves from the constraints of the Constitution negated the need for Northerners to adhere to the Fugitive Slave Law. Then Lincoln went on to forecast other possibilities. “Will you make war upon us and kill us all?” Lincoln asked, reminding the Southerners that it all came down to a numbers game because “man for man, you are not better than we are and there are not so many of you as there are of us.”
The tactic of addressing the South in the form of Kentuckians had suited Lincoln well in Cincinnati and earned praise in the Republican press. Lincoln attempted this again in New York five months later at Cooper Union: “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….” This was a clumsier segue at Cooper Union considering that hundreds of miles separated Lincoln from the South in February 1860 rather than hundreds of yards in September 1859. Again, in the mode of addressing Southerners, Lincoln chastised them at Cooper Union, as he did in Cincinnati, for threatening disunion. But the extended discussion about the possible outcome of armed conflict was dropped from the New York speech. Lincoln apparently discussed civil warfare only once in the thirty addresses delivered between August 1859 and March 1860 — at Cincinnati.
Approximately ninety minutes into the Cincinnati speech, Lincoln left the Kentuckians and directed his remarks to the Ohioans; i.e., Northerners. The change of tactic was necessary for Lincoln to destroy another provocative postulate of Douglas in the Harper’s New Monthly Magazine article: that Ohio and the other five states (including the eastern portion of Minnesota) carved out of the Northwest Territory were created as slave-free entities not because of the Ordinance of 1787, which restricted slavery in the original territory from where the states were formed, but because of popular sovereignty, which empowered the citizens of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota to vote out slavery when their respective states were formed from the territory. Douglas’s evidence for this claim included the fact that slavery had been permitted in Illinois, both as a territory and in its early history of statehood, and that its citizens were responsible for eliminating it as they were in Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and the portion of Minnesota that formed the original territory. Popular sovereignty made these states slave free, concluded Douglas, “and that the Ordinance of 1787 was not entitled in any degree to divide the honor with them.”
Lincoln had used the Ordinance of 1787 as his trump card against Douglas throughout the 1858 debates, but the Harper’s article had forced Lincoln to formulate a new strategy to address the issue. He had talked about it in Columbus, but Cincinnati provided Lincoln with a perfect logical case to counter Douglas’s claim in regards to the state of Ohio. “I have no doubt the people of the State of Ohio did make her free according to their own will and judgment,” declared Lincoln that night, “but let the facts be remembered.”
Lincoln then presented those facts. He told the Ohioans that their state constitution in 1802 included a clause prohibiting slavery, a clause made easy to enforce because no slaves existed within Ohio’s borders at the commencement of statehood. “Pray what was it that made you free?” he asked, and then answered using the advantage of location not available to him in his previous four speeches in Ohio. Lincoln reiterated that differences in climate and soil between North and South had been Douglas’s argument for the reason that slavery had been rejected by the citizens of Ohio upon statehood. Pointing out that the lands of Kentucky across the river were not part of the original ordinance, Lincoln reminded his Cincinnati audience that a small portion of eastern Kentucky was geographically north of where they currently stood, a result of the bulging and winding course of the Ohio River boundary in this sector. (In fact, most Ohio’s entire Southern tier stood south of the bulging region of Kentucky opposite the river from Cincinnati.)
So why was Ohio entirely slave free while Kentucky was inundated with slavery — including the lands north of Ohio’s river towns? Understanding that he was in the ideal locale to vanquish Douglas’s assertion, Lincoln pressed this case more thoroughly in Cincinnati than he ever had before or ever would again: “What made that difference? Was it climate? No! A portion of Kentucky was further north than this portion of Ohio. Was it soil? No! There is nothing in the soil of the [state] more favorable to slave labor than the other. It was not climate or soil that caused one side of the line to be entirely covered with slavery and the other side free of it. What was it? Study over it. Tell us, if you can, in all the range of conjecture, if there is anything you can conceive of that made that difference, other than that there was no law of any sort keeping it out of Kentucky while the Ordinance of ’87 kept it out of Ohio. If there is any other reason than this, I confess that it is wholly beyond my power to conceive of it. This, then, I offer to combat the idea that that ordinance has never made any State free.”
After explaining Ohio to the Ohioans, Lincoln discussed Indiana and Illinois, the other two Northwest Territory states that bordered the South. Lincoln acknowledged Douglas’s claim that Illinois’s first state constitution allowed slaves to remain in the French settlements where they already existed for more than one hundred years. Although this fact perhaps justified Douglas’s assertion that Illinois came into the Union as a slave state, Lincoln scoffed at Douglas’s contention that it was a free state in 1859 because popular sovereignty extinguished the institution. Lincoln painstakingly contrasted Illinois with Missouri, using the same geographical argument that he did for Kentucky and Ohio. Why then was Illinois a free state while Missouri was inundated with slaves? Because, as Lincoln argued, the limited slaves allowed in Illinois in the early years of its statehood was constitutionally legalized with the spirit of the Ordinance of 1787 in mind to let the institution die with the finite number of elderly slaves in the French settlements. Slavery declined in Illinois to near-negligible numbers by 1830, while Missouri’s slave population, not subject to the Ordinance restrictions, grew to 10,000 — a tremendous contrast considering both states entered the Union close to the same time with equally few slaves in their French settlements. By running through the history of the states formed from the Old Northwest Territory, Lincoln haughtily concluded that it was “a fallacy” for Douglas to insist that slavery restriction in the Ordinance of 1787 was trumped by popular sovereignty in those states.
Lincoln continued to dissect Douglas with rhetorical logic. After mocking Douglas’s version of popular sovereignty, Lincoln redefined it: “that each man shall do precisely as he pleases with himself and with all those things which exclusively concern him.” He transferred the same definition to federal and local governments, replacing “man” and its pronouns with those institutions in each definition. Lincoln carried the discussion of slavery within the context of capital and labor. Lincoln argued that the most successful American system of labor exists when a hired laborer works under the pretense that he has the ability to garner his wages. He accomplishes this by a “sober” and “industrious” approach to his labor, accumulates enough capital to either spend it as he pleases or hires his own laborers and thus becomes the type of employer he originally worked under.
Two-and-a-half-hours after his introduction, Lincoln entered the conclusion of his speech. He stressed that Republicans must recognize the immorality of slavery to counter Douglas and popular sovereignty. Lincoln declared that although slavery was wrong, it must be accepted in the South where it was constitutionally protected. Likewise, Republicans must not interfere with enforcing the fugitive slave law “because the Constitution requires us, as I understand it, not to withhold such a law.” Lincoln considered it imperative to discuss this, for a radical sector of Ohio’s Republican Party — led by Salmon P. Chase — intended to fight to add a plank to the National Republican Convention to repeal the Fugitive Slave Law. Lincoln was convinced that if Chase succeeded, the national convention would be thrown in chaos and the election would be thrown to the Democrats.
Lincoln assured his Cincinnati audience that acceptance of the constitutional protection of slavery did not sacrifice the movement to prevent its spread into the territories. This could only be accomplished by preventing the reopening of the African slave trade and wiping out any attempt to establish a territorial slave code. “The people of these United States are the rightful masters of both congresses and courts,” Lincoln exhorted to his cheering crowd. He told them not to overthrow the U.S. Constitution “but to overthrow the men who pervert that Constitution.” He advocated nominating a presidential candidate that the opposition (Republicans, Know Nothings, and all other factions opposed to Democrats) could rally around, one who adhered to the principles he had advocated throughout his speech. Lincoln insisted that it mattered not where this candidate originated; even a slaveholding state could yield a principled man he could support. “It would do my soul good to do that thing. It would enable us to teach [the South] that, inasmuch as we select one of their own number to carry out our principles, we are free from the charge that we mean more than we say.” Lincoln thanked his listeners for their attention and patience, admitting that he “detained you much longer than I expected to do.” And with that he closed his Cincinnati speech, gratified by thunderous cheers and applause.
Unlike the Cooper Union speech, the Cincinnati address garnered complete nationwide attention when it was distributed in the South by a most unlikely source — Stephen A. Douglas. The “Little Giant” took advantage of Lincoln’s labors in the speech to demonize himself in the eyes of Northern Democrats by illustrating that he was too cozy to the Southern wing of the party. With the aid of the newly elected Illinois Democratic congressman, John “Black Jack” Logan, Douglas reportedly produced 50,000 copies of Lincoln’s Cincinnati speech under the title “Douglas an enemy to the North.” Douglas’s ploy was to expand his presidential prospects to a Southern audience that had grown increasingly hostile to his anti-Lecompton stance and to the Freeport Doctrine. The method ensured widespread circulation of Lincoln’s speech to reach those who had no access to any of the forty-four Southern newspapers that had printed a portion of Lincoln’s Cincinnati speech.
September 17, 1859
My fellow-citizens of the State of Ohio: This is the first time in my life that I have appeared before an audience in so great a city as this. I therefore — -though I am no longer a young man — -make this appearance under some degree of embarrassment. But, I have found that when one is embarrassed, usually the shortest way to get through with it is to quit talking or thinking about it, and go at something else. (Applause.)
WHAT DID DOUGLAS SAY?
I understand that you have had recently with you, my very distinguished friend, Judge Douglas, of Illinois, (laughter) and I understand, without having had an opportunity, (not greatly sought to be sure,) of seeing a report of the speech, that he made here, that he did me the honor to mention my humble name. I suppose that he did so for the purpose of making some objection to some sentiment at some time expressed by me. I should expect, it is true, that Judge Douglas had reminded you, or informed you, if you had never before heard it, that I had once in my life declared it as my opinion that this government cannot ``endure permanently half slave and half free; that a house divided against itself cannot stand,’’ and, as I had expressed it, I did not expect the house to fall; that I did not expect the Union to be dissolved; but, that I did expect that it would cease to be divided; that it would become all one thing or all the other, that either the opponents of Slavery would arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind would rest in the belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinction; or the friends of Slavery will push it forward until it becomes alike lawful in all the States, old or new, Free as well as Slave. I did, fifteen months ago, express that opinion, and upon many occasions Judge Douglas has denounced it, and has greatly, intentionally or unintentionally, misrepresented my purpose in the expression of that opinion.
I presume, without having seen a report of his speech, that he did so here. I presume that he alluded also to that opinion in differentPage 439language, having been expressed at a subsequent time by Governor Seward of New York, and that he took the two in a lump and denounced them; that he tried to point out that there was something couched in this opinion which led to the making of an entire uniformity of the local institutions of the various States of the Union, in utter disregard of the different States, which in their nature would seem to require a variety of institutions, and a variety of laws, conforming to the differences in the nature of the different States.
Not only so; I presume he insisted that this was a declaration of war between the Free and Slave States — -that it was the sounding to the onset of continual war between the different States, the Slave and Free States.
This charge, in this form, was made by Judge Douglas on, I believe, the 9th of July, 1858, in Chicago, in my hearing. On the next evening, I made some reply to it. I informed him that many of the inferences he drew from that expression of mine were altogether foreign to any purpose entertained by me, and in so far as he should ascribe those inferences to me, as my purpose, he was entirely mistaken; and in so far as he might argue that whatever might be my purpose, actions, conforming to my views, would lead to these results, he might argue and establish if he could; but, so far as purposes were concerned, he was totally mistaken as to me.
When I made that reply to him — -when I told him, on the question of declaring war between the different States of the Union, that I had not said I did not expect any peace upon this question until Slavery was exterminated; that I had only said I expected peace when that institution was put where the public mind should rest in the belief that it was in course of ultimate extinction; that I believed from the organization of our government, until a very recent period of time, the institution had been placed and continued upon such a basis; that we had had comparative peace upon that question through a portion of that period of time, only because the public mind rested in that belief in regard to it, and that when we returned to that position in relation to that matter, I supposed we should again have peace as we previously had. I assured him, as I now assure you, that I neither then had, nor have, or ever had, any purpose in any way of interfering with the institution of Slavery, where it exists. [Long continued applause.] I believe we have no power, under the Constitution of the United States; or rather under the form of government under which we live, to interfere with the institution of Slavery, or any other of thePage 440institutions of our sister States, be they Free or Slave States. [Cries of ``Good,’’ and applause.] I declared then and I now re-declare, that I have as little inclination to so interfere with the institution of Slavery where it now exists, through the instrumentality of the general Government, or any other instrumentality, as I believe we have no power to do so. [A voice — — ``You’re right.’’] I accidentally used this expression: I had no purpose of entering into the Slave States to disturb the institution of Slavery! So, upon the first occasion that Judge Douglas got an opportunity to reply to me, he passed by the whole body of what I had said upon that subject, and seized upon the particular expression of mine, that I had no purpose of entering into the Slave States to disturb the institution of Slavery! ``Oh, no,’’ said he, ``he (Lincoln) won’t enter into the Slave States to disturb the institution of Slavery; he is too prudent a man to do such a thing as that; he only means that he will go on to the line between the Free and Slave States, and shoot over at them. [Laughter.] This is all he means to do. He means to do them all the harm he can, to disturb them all he can, in such a way as to keep his own hide in perfect safety.’’ [Laughter.]
OPPORTUNITY TO SHOOT ACROSS THE LINE.
Well, now, I did not think, at that time, that that was either a very dignified or very logical argument; but so it was, I had to get along with it as well as I could.
It has occurred to me here to-night, that if I ever do shoot over the line at the people on the other side of the line into a Slave State, and purpose to do so, keeping my skin safe, that I have now about the best chance I shall ever have. [Laughter and applause.] I should not wonder that there are some Kentuckians about this audience; we are close to Kentucky; and whether that be so or not, we are on elevated ground, and by speaking distinctly, I should not wonder if some of the Kentuckians would hear me on the other side of the river. [Laughter.] For that reason I propose to address a portion of what I have to say to the Kentuckians.
INTRODUCING HIMSELF TO KENTUCKIANS.
I say, then, in the first place, to the Kentuckians, that I am what they call, as I understand it, a ``Black Republican.’’ (Applause and laughter.) I think Slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union. (Applause.) While I say this for myself, I say to you, Kentuckians, that I understand you differ radically with mePage 441upon this proposition; that you believe Slavery is a good thing; that Slavery is right; that it ought to be extended and perpetuated in this Union. Now, there being this broad difference between us, I do not pretend in addressing myself to you, Kentuckians, to attempt proselyting you; that would be a vain effort. I do not enter upon it. I only propose to try to show you that you ought to nominate for the next Presidency, at Charleston, my distinguished friend Judge Douglas. [Applause.] In all that there is a difference between you and him, I understand he is as sincerely for you, and more wisely for you, than you are for yourselves. [Applause.] I will try to demonstrate that proposition. Understand now, I say that I believe he is as sincerely for you, and more wisely for you, than you are for yourselves.
ADVOCATES THE ``GIANT’S CLAIMS.’’
What do you want more than anything else to make successful your views of Slavery, — -to advance the outspread of it, and to secure and perpetuate the nationality of it? What do you want more than anything else? What is needed absolutely? What is indispensable to you? Why! if I may be allowed to answer the question, it is to retain a hold upon the North — -it is to retain support and strength from the Free States. If you can get this support and strength from the Free States, you can succeed. If you do not get this support and this strength from the Free States, you are in the minority, and you are beaten at once.
If that proposition be admitted, — -and it is undeniable, then the next thing I say to you, is that Douglas of all the men in this nation is the only man that affords you any hold upon the Free States; that no other man can give you any strength in the Free States. This being so, if you doubt the other branch of the proposition, whether he is for you — -whether he is really for you as I have expressed it, I propose asking your attention for awhile to a few facts.
The issue between you and me, understand, is that I think Slavery is wrong, and ought not to be outspread, and you think it is right and ought to be extended and perpetuated. (A voice, ``oh, Lord.’’) That is my Kentuckian I am talking to now. (Applause.)
I now proceed to try to show you that Douglas is as sincerely for you and more wisely for you than you are for yourselves.
DOUGLAS AT THE WORK OF THE SOUTH.
In the first place we know that in a Government like this, in a Government of the people, where the voice of all the men of thePage 442country, substantially enter into the execution, — -or administration rather — -of the Government — -in such a Government, what lies at the bottom of all of it, is public opinion. I lay down the proposition, that Douglas is not only the man that promises you in advance a hold upon the North, and support in the North, but that he constantly moulds public opinion to your ends; that in every possible way he can, he constantly moulds the public opinion of the North to your ends; and if there are a few things in which he seems to be against you — -a few things which he says that appear to be against you, and a few that he forbears to say which you would like to have him say — -you ought to remember that the saying of the one, or the forbearing to say the other, would loose his hold upon the North, and, by consequence, would lose his capacity to serve you. (A Voice, ``That is so.’’)
Upon this subject of moulding public opinion, I call your attention to the fact — -for a well-established fact it is — -that the Judge never says your institution of Slavery is wrong; he never says it is right, to be sure, but he never says it is wrong. [Laughter.] There is not a public man in the United States, I believe, with the exception of Senator Douglas, who has not, at some time in his life, declared his opinion whether the thing is right or wrong; but, Senator Douglas never declares it is wrong. He leaves himself at perfect liberty to do all in your favor which he would be hindered from doing if he were to declare the thing to be wrong. On the contrary, he takes all the chances that he has for inveigling the sentiment of the North, opposed to Slavery, into your support, by never saying it is right. [Laughter.] This you ought to set down to his credit. [Laughter.] You ought to give him full credit for this much, little though it be, in comparison to the whole which he does for you.
SEE — SAW.
Some other things I will ask your attention to. He said upon the floor of the United States Senate, and he has repeated it as I understand, a great many times, that he does not care whether Slavery is ``voted up or voted down.’’ This again shows you, or ought to show you, if you would reason upon it, that he does not believe it to be wrong, for a man may say, when he sees nothing wrong in a thing, that he does not care whether it be voted up or voted down, but no man can logically say that he cares not whether a thing goes up or goes down, which to him appears to be wrong. You therefore have a demonstration in this, that to Douglas’ mind your favorite institution which you would have spread out, and made perpetual, is no wrong.
Page 443THE ALMIGHTY’S DIVIDING LINE.
Another thing he tells you, in a speech made at Memphis in Tennessee, shortly after the canvass in Illinois, last year. He there distinctly told the people, that there was a ``line drawn by the Almighty across this continent, on the one side of which the soil must always be cultivated by slaves,’’ that he did not pretend to know exactly where that line was, [laughter and applause,] but that there was such a line. I want to ask your attention to that proposition again; that there is one portion of this continent where the Almighty has designed the soil shall always be cultivated by slaves; that its being cultivated by slaves at that place is right; that it has the direct sympathy and authority of the Almighty. Whenever you can get these Northern audiences to adopt the opinion that Slavery is right on the other side of the Ohio; whenever you can get them, in pursuance of Douglas’ views, to adopt that sentiment, they will very readily make the other argument, which is perfectly logical, that that which is right on that side of the Ohio, cannot be wrong on this, [laughter;] and that if you have that property on that side of the Ohio, under the seal and stamp of the Almighty, when by any means it escapes over here, it is wrong to have constitutions and laws, ``to devil’’ you about it. So Douglas is moulding the public opinion of the North, first to say that the thing is right in your State over the Ohio river, and hence to say that that which is right there is not wrong here, [at this moment the cannon was fired; to the great injury of sundry panes of glass in the vicinity,] and that all laws and constitutions here, recognizing it as being wrong, are themselves wrong, and ought to be repealed and abrogated. He will tell you, men of Ohio, that if you choose here to have laws against Slavery it is in conformity to the idea that your climate is not suited to it, that your climate is not suited to slave labor, and therefore you have constitutions and laws against it.
Let us attend to that argument for a little while and see if it be sound. You do not raise sugar cane — -[except the new fashioned sugar cane, and you won’t raise that long] but they do raise it in Louisiana. You don’t raise it in Ohio because you can’t raise it profitably, because the climate don’t suit it. [Here again the cannon interrupted. Its report was followed by another fall of window glass.] They do raise it in Louisiana because there it is profitable. Now, Douglas will tell you that is precisely the Slavery question. That they do have slaves there because they are profitable, and you don’t have them here because they are not profitable.
Page 444If that is so, then it leads to dealing with the one precisely as with the other. Is there then anything in the constitution or laws of Ohio against raising sugar cane? Have you found it necessary to put any such provision in your law? Surely not! No man desires to raise sugar cane in Ohio; but, if any man did desire to do so, you would say it was a tyrannical law that forbid his doing so, and whenever you shall agree with Douglas, whenever your minds are brought to adopt his argument, as surely you will have reached the conclusion, that although Slavery is not profitable in Ohio, if any man wants it, it is wrong to him not to let him have it.
In this matter Judge Douglas is preparing the public mind for you of Kentucky, to make perpetual that good thing in your estimation, about which you and I differ.
THE CHANGES IN FIVE YEARS.
In this connection let me ask your attention to another thing. I believe it is safe to assert that five years ago, no living man had expressed the opinion that the negro had no share in the Declaration of Independence. Let me state that again: five years ago no living man had expressed the opinion that the negro had no share in the Declaration of Independence. If there is in this large audience any man who ever knew of that opinion being put upon paper as much as five years ago, I will be obliged to him now or at a subsequent time to show it.
If that be true I wish you then to note the next fact; that within the space of five years Senator Douglas, in the argument of this question, has got his entire party, so far as I know, without exception, to join in saying that the negro has no share in the Declaration of Independence. If there be now in all these United States, one Douglas man that does not say this, I have been unable upon any occasion to scare him up. Now if none of you said this five years ago, and all of you say it now, that is a matter that you Kentuckians ought to note. That is a vast change in the Northern public sentiment upon that question.
Of what tendency is that change? The tendency of that change is to bring the public mind to the conclusion that when men are spoken of, the negro is not meant; that when negroes are spoken of, brutes alone are contemplated. That change in public sentiment has already degraded the black man in the estimation of Douglas and his followers from the condition of a man of some sort, and assigned him to the condition of a brute. Now, you Kentuckians ought to give Douglas credit for this. That is the largestPage 445possible stride that can be made in regard to the perpetuation of your thing of Slavery.
A VOICE — -``Speak to Ohio men, and not to Kentuckians!’’
MR. LINCOLN — -I beg permission to speak as I please. (Laughter.)
THE BIBLE THEORY.
In Kentucky, perhaps, in many of the Slave States certainly, you are trying to establish the rightfulness of Slavery by reference to the Bible. You are trying to show that slavery existed in the Bible times by Divine ordinance. Now Douglas is wiser than you, for your own benefit, upon that subject. Douglas knows that whenever you establish that Slavery was right by the Bible, it will occur that that Slavery was the Slavery of the white man — -of men without reference to color — -and he knows very well that you may entertain that idea in Kentucky as much as you please, but you will never win any Northern support upon it. He makes a wiser argument for you; he makes the argument that the slavery of the black man, the slavery of the man who has a skin of a different color from your own, is right. He thereby brings to your support Northern voters who could not for a moment be brought by your own argument of the Bible-right of slavery. Will you not give him credit for that? Will you not say that in this matter he is more wisely for you than you are for yourselves.
Now having established with his entire party this doctrine — -having been entirely successful in that branch of his efforts in your behalf; he is ready for another.
A SUM IN THE RULE OF THREE.
At this same meeting at Memphis, he declared that while in all contests between the negro and the white man, he was for the white man, but that in all questions between the negro and the crocodile he was for the negro. (Laughter.) He did not make that declaration accidentally at Memphis. He made it a great many times in the canvass in Illinois last year, (though I don’t know that it was reported in any of his speeches there,) but he frequently made it. I believe he repeated it at Columbus, and I should not wonder if he repeated it here. It is, then, a deliberate way of expressing himself upon that subject. It is a matter of mature deliberation with him thus to express himself upon that point of his case. It therefore requires some deliberate attention.
The first inference seems to be that if you do not enslave the negro you are wronging the white man in some way or other, andPage 446that whoever is opposed to the negro being enslaved is in some way or other against the white man. Is not that a falsehood? If there was a necessary conflict between the white man and the negro, I should be for the white man as much as Judge Douglas; but I say there is no such necessary conflict. I say that there is room enough for us all to be free, (loud manifestations of applause,) and that it not only does not wrong the white man that the negro should be free, but it positively wrongs the mass of the white men that the negro should be enslaved; that the mass of white men are really injured by the effect of slave labor in the vicinity of the fields of their own labor. (Applause.)
But I do not desire to dwell upon this branch of the question more than to say that this assumption of his is false, and I do hope that that fallacy will not long prevail in the minds of intelligent white men. At all events, you Kentuckians ought to thank Judge Douglas for it. It is for your benefit it is made.
The other branch of it is, that in a struggle between the negro and the crocodile, he is for the negro. Well, I don’t know that there is any struggle between the negro and the crocodile, either. (Laughter.) I suppose that if a crocodile (or as we old Ohio river boatmen used to call them, alligators) should come across a white man, he would kill him if he could, and so he would a negro. But what, at last, is this proposition? I believe it is a sort of proposition in proportion, which may be stated thus: As the negro is to the white man, so is the crocodile as a beast or reptile, so the white man may rightfully treat the negro as a beast or a reptile. (Applause.) That is really the ``knip’’ of all that argument of his.
Now, my brother Kentuckians, who believe in this, you ought to thank Judge Douglas for having put that in a much more taking way than any of yourselves have done. (Applause.)
THE ``GREAT PRINCIPLE.’’
Again, Douglas’ great principle, ``Popular Sovereignty,’’ as he calls it, gives you, by natural consequence, the revival of the Slavetrade whenever you want it. If you question this, listen a while, consider a while, what I shall advance in support of that proposition.
He says that it is the sacred right of the man who goes into the Territories, to have Slavery if he wants it. Grant that for argument’s sake. Is it not the sacred right of the man that don’t go there equally to buy slaves in Africa, if he wants them? Can you point out the difference? The man who goes into the TerritoriesPage 447of Kansas and Nebraska, or any other new Territory, with the sacred right of taking a slave there which belongs to him, would certainly have no more right to take one there than I would who own no slave, but who would desire to buy one and take him there. You will not say — -you, the friends of Douglas — -but that the man who does not own a slave, has an equal right to buy one and take him to the Territory, as the other does?
A VOICE. ``I want to ask a question. Don’t foreign nations interfere with the Slave-trade?’’
MR. LINCOLN. Well! I understand it to be a principle of Democracy to whip foreign nations whenever they interfere with us. (Laughter and applause.)
VOICE. ``I only asked for information. I am a Republican myself.’’
MR. LINCOLN. You and I will be on the best terms in the world, but I do not wish to be diverted from the point I was trying to press.
I say that Douglas’ Popular Sovereignty, establishing a sacred right in the people, if you please, if carried to its logical conclusion, gives equally the sacred right to the people of the States or the Territories themselves to buy slaves, wherever they can buy them cheapest; and if any man can show a distinction, I should like to hear him try it. If any man can show how the people of Kansas have a better right to slaves because they want them, than the people of Georgia have to buy them in Africa, I want him to do it. I think it cannot be done. If it is ``Popular Sovereignty’’ for the people to have slaves because they want them, it is Popular Sovereignty for them to buy them in Africa, because they desire to do so.
A CHAPTER ON COMPROMISES.
I know that Douglas has recently made a little effort — -not seeming to notice that he had a different theory — -has made an effort to get rid of that. He has written a letter addressed to somebody, I believe, who resides in Iowa, declaring his opposition to the repeal of the laws that prohibit the African Slave Trade. He bases his opposition to such repeal upon the ground that these laws are themselves one of the compromises of the Constitution of the United States. Now it would be very interesting to see Judge Douglas or any of his friends turn to the Constitution of the United States and point out that compromise, to show where there is any compromise in the Constitution or provision in the Constitution, express or implied, by which the Administrators of that ConstitutionPage 448are under any obligation to repeal the African Slave-trade. I know, or at least I think I know, that the framers of that Constitution did expect that the African Slave-trade would be abolished at the end of twenty years, to which time their prohibition against its being abolished extended. I think there is abundant contemporaneous history to show that the framers of the Constitution expected it to be abolished. But while they so expected, they gave nothing for that expectation, and they put no provision in the Constitution requiring it should be so abolished. The migration or importation of such persons as the States shall see fit to admit shall not be prohibited, but a certain tax might be levied upon such importation. But what was to be done after that time? The Constitution is as silent about that, as it is silent personally about myself. There is absolutely nothing in it about that subject — -there is only the expectation of the framers of the Constitution that the Slave-trade would be abolished at the end of that time and they expected it would be abolished, owing to public sentiment, before that time, and they put that provision in, in order that it should not be abolished before that time, for reasons which I suppose they thought to be sound ones, but which I will not now try to enumerate before you.
But while they expected the Slave-trade would be abolished at that time, they expected that the spread of Slavery into the new Territories should also be restricted. It is as easy to prove that the framers of the Constitution of the United States, expected that Slavery should be prohibited from extending into the new Territories, as it is to prove that it was expected that the Slave-trade should be abolished. Both these things were expected. One was no more expected than the other, and one was no more a compromise of the Constitution than the other. There was nothing said in the Constitution in regard to the spread of Slavery into the Territory. I grant that, but there was something very important said about it by the same generation of men in the adoption of the old Ordinance of `87, through the influence of which you here in Ohio, our neighbors in Indiana, we in Illinois, our neighbors in Michigan and Wisconsin are happy, prosperous, teeming millions of free men. (Continued applause.) That generation of men, though not to the full extent members of the Convention that framed the Constitution, were to some extent members of that Convention, holding seats, at the same time in one body and the other, so that if there was any compromise on either of these subjects, the strong evidence is that that compromise was in favor of the restriction of Slavery from the new territories.
Page 449But Douglas says that he is unalterably opposed to the repeal of those laws; because, in his view, it is a compromise of the Constitution. You Kentuckians, no doubt, are somewhat offended with that! You ought not to be! You ought to be patient! You ought to know that if he said less than that, he would lose the power of ``lugging’’ the Northern States to your support. Really, what you would push him to do would take from him his entire power to serve you. And you ought to remember how long, by precedent, Judge Douglas holds himself obliged to stick by compromises. You ought to remember that by the time you yourselves think you are ready to inaugurate measures for the revival of the African Slave-trade that sufficient time will have arrived by precedent, for Judge Douglas to break through that compromise. He says now nothing more strong than he said in 1849 when he declared in favor of the Missouri Compromise — -that precisely four years and a quarter after he declared that compromise to be a sacred thing, which ``no ruthless hand would ever dare to touch,’’ he, himself, brought forward the measure, ruthlessly to destroy it. (A voice — -``hit him again!’’ Applause.) By a mere calculation of time it will only be four years more until he is ready to take back his profession about the sacredness of the Compromise abolishing the slave trade. Precisely as soon as you are ready to have his services in that direction, by fair calculation you may be sure of having them. (Applause and laughter.)
But you remember and set down to Judge Douglas’ debit, or discredit, that he, last year, said the people of the Territories can, in spite of the Dred Scott decision, exclude your slaves from those territories; that he declared by ``unfriendly legislation,’’ the extension of your property into the new Territories may be cut off in the teeth of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.
He assumed that position at Freeport on the 27th of August, 1858. He said that the people of the Territories can exclude Slavery in so many words. You ought, however, to bear in mind that he has never said it since. (Laughter.) You may hunt in every speech that he has since made, and he has never used that expression once. He has never seemed to notice that he is stating his views differently from what he did then; but, by some sort of accident, he has always really stated it differently. He has always since then declared that ``the Constitution does not carry Slavery into the Territories of the United States beyond the power of the people legally to control it, as other property.’’ Now, there is a differencePage 450in the language used upon that former occasion and in this latter day. There may or may not be a difference in the meaning, but it is worth while considering whether there is not also a difference in meaning.
What is it to exclude? Why, it is to drive it out. It is in some way to put it out of the Territory. It is to force it across the line, or change its character, so that as property it is out of existence. But what is the controlling of it ``as other property?’’ Is controlling it as other property the same thing [as]  destroying it, or driving it away? I should think not. I should think the controlling of it as other property would be just about what you in Kentucky should want. I understand the controlling of property means the controlling of it for the benefit of the owner of it. While I have no doubt the Supreme Court of the United States would say ``God speed’’ to any of the Territorial legislatures that should thus control slave property, they would sing quite a different tune if by the pretense of controlling it they were to undertake to pass laws which virtually excluded it, and that upon a very well known principle to all lawyers, that what a legislature cannot directly do, it cannot do by indirection; that as, the legislature has not the power to drive slaves out, they have no power by indirection, by tax or by imposing burdens in any way on that property, to effect the same end, and that any attempt to do so would be held by the Dred Scott Court unconstitutional.
Douglas is not willing to stand by his first proposition that they can exclude it, because we have seen that that proposition amounts to nothing more nor less than the naked absurdity, that you may lawfully drive out that which has a lawful right to remain. He admitted at first that the slave might be lawfully taken into the Territories under the Constitution of the United States, and yet asserted that he might be lawfully driven out. That being the proposition, it is the absurdity I have stated. He is not willing to stand in the face of that direct, naked and impudent absurdity; he has, therefore, modified his language into that of being ``controlled as other property.’’
SWEARING BY THE COURTS.
The Kentuckians don’t like this in Douglas! I will tell you where it will go. He now swears by the Court. He was once a leading man in Illinois to break down a Court, because it had made a decision he did not like. But he now not only swears by the Court, thePage 451courts having got to working for you, but he denounces all men that do not swear by the Courts, as unpatriotic, as bad citizens. When one of these acts of unfriendly legislation shall impose such heavy burdens as to, in effect, destroy property in slaves in a Territory and show plainly enough that there can be no mistake in the purpose of the Legislature to make them so burdensome, this same Supreme Court will decide that law to be unconstitutional, and he will be ready to say for your benefit, ``I swear by the Court; I give it up;’’ and while that is going on he has been getting all his men to swear by the Courts, and to give it up with him. In this again he serves you faithfully, and as I say, more wisely than you serve yourselves.
A WORD ABOUT PATRIOTIC SPEECHES.
Again! I have alluded in the beginning of these remarks to the fact, that Judge Douglas has made great complaint of my having expressed the opinion that this Government ``cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.’’ He has complained of Seward for using different language, and declaring that there is an ``irrepressible conflict’’ between the principles of free and slave labor.
(A voice — -``He says it is not original with Seward. That is original with Lincoln.’’)
I will attend to that immediately, sir. Since that time, Hickman,  of Pennsylvania expressed the same sentiment. He has never denounced Mr. Hickman: why? There is a little chance, notwithstanding, that opinion in the mouth of Hickman, that he may yet be a Douglas man. That is the difference! It is not unpatriotic to hold that opinion, if a man is a Douglas man.
But neither I nor Seward, nor Hickman, is entitled to the enviable or unenviable distinction of having first expressed that idea. That same idea was expressed by the Richmond Enquirer in Virginia, in 1856; quite two years before it was expressed by the first of us. And while Douglas was pluming himself, that in his conflict with my humble self, last year, he had ``squelched out’’ that fatal heresy, as he delighted to call it, and had suggested that if he only had had a chance to be in New York and meet Seward he would have ``squelched’’ it there also, it never occurred [to him?]  to breathe a word against Pryor.  I don’t think that you can discover that Douglas ever talked of going to Virginia to ``squelch’’ out that idea there. No. More than that. That same Roger A. PryorPage 452was brought to Washington City and made the editor of the par excellence Douglas paper, after making use of that expression, which, in us, is so unpatriotic and heretical. From all this, my Kentucky friends may see that this opinion is heretical in his view only when it is expressed by men suspected of a desire that the country shall all become free and not when expressed by those fairly known to entertain the desire that the whole country shall become slave. When expressed by that class of men, it is in no wise offensive to him. In this again, my friends of Kentucky, you have Judge Douglas with you.
ON GIGANTIC CAPACITY.
There is another reason why you Southern people ought to nominate Douglas at your convention at Charleston. That reason is the wonderful capacity of the man; [laughter] the power he has of doing what would seem to be impossible. Let me call your attention to one of these apparently impossible things.
Douglas had three or four very distinguished men of the most extreme anti-slavery views of any men in the Republican party, expressing their desire for his re-election to the Senate last year. That would, of itself, have seemed to be a little wonderful, but that wonder is heightened when we see that Wise  of Virginia, a man exactly opposed to them, a man who believes in the Divine right of slavery, was also expressing his desire that Douglas should be re-elected, that another man that may be said to be kindred to Wise, Mr. Breckinridge,  the Vice President, and of your own State, was also agreeing with the anti-slavery men in the North; that Douglas ought to be re-elected. Still, to heighten the wonder, a Senator from Kentucky, whom I have always loved with an affection as tender and endearing as I have ever loved any man; who was opposed to the anti-slavery men for reasons which seemed sufficient to him, and equally opposed to Wise and Breckinridge, was writing letters into Illinois to secure the re-election of Douglas. Now that all these conflicting elements should be brought, while at dagger’s points, with one another, to support him, is a feat that is worthy for you to note and consider. It is quite probable, that each of these classes of men thought by the re-election of Douglas, their peculiar views would gain something, it is probable that the antislavery men thought their views would gain something that Wise and Breckinridge thought so too, as regards their opinions, that Mr. Crittenden thought that his views would gain something, although he was opposed to both these other men. ItPage 453is probable that each and all of them thought that they were using Douglas, and it is yet an unsolved problem whether he was not using them all. If he was, then it is for you to consider whether that power to perform wonders, is one for you lightly to throw away.
AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED.
There is one other thing that I will say to you in this relation. It is but my opinion, I give it to you without a fee. It is my opinion that it is for you to take him or be defeated; and that if you do take him you may be beaten. You will surely be beaten if you do not take him. We, the Republicans and others forming the Opposition of the country, intend to ``stand by our guns,’’ to be patient and firm, and in the long run to beat you whether you take him or not. [Applause.] We know that before we fairly beat you, we have to beat you both together. We know that you are ``all of a feather,’’ [loud applause,] and that we have to beat you altogether, and we expect to do it. [Applause] We don’t intend to be very impatient about it. We mean to be as deliberate and calm about it as it is possible to be, but as firm and resolved, as it is possible for men to be. When we do as we say, beat you, you perhaps want to know what we will do with you. [Laughter]
I will tell you, so far as I am authorized to speak for the Opposition, what we mean to do with you. We mean to treat you as near as we possibly can, like Washington, Jefferson and Madison treated you. [Cheers] We mean to leave you alone, and in no way to interfere with your institution; to abide by all and every compromise of the constitution, and, in a word, coming back to the original proposition, to treat you, so far as degenerated men (if we have degenerated) may, according to the examples of those noble fathers — -Washington, Jefferson and Madison. [Applause] We mean to remember that you are as good as we; that there is no difference between us other than the difference of circumstances. We mean to recognise and bear in mind always that you have as good hearts in your bosoms as other people, or as we claim to have, and treat you accordingly. We mean to marry your girls when we have a chance — -the white ones I mean — -[laughter] and I have the honor to inform you that I once did have a chance in that way. [A voice, ``Good for you,’’ and applause]
I have told you what we mean to do. I want to know, now, when that thing takes place, what you mean to do. I often hear it intimated that you mean to divide the Union whenever a Republican, or anything like it, is elected President of the United States.
Page 454[A voice, ``That is so.’’] ``That is so,’’ one of them says. I wonder if he is a Kentuckian? [A voice, ``He is a Douglas man.’’] Well, then, I want to know what you are going to do with your half of it? [Applause and laughter] Are you going to split the Ohio down through, and push your half off a piece? Or are you going to keep it right alongside of us outrageous fellows? Or are you going to build up a wall some way between your country and ours, by which that moveable property of yours can’t come over here any more, to the danger of your losing it? Do you think you can better yourselves on that subject, by leaving us here under no obligation whatever to return those specimens of your moveable property that come hither? You have divided the Union because we would not do right with you as you think, upon that subject; when we cease to be under obligations to do anything for you, how much better off do you think you will be? Will you make war upon us and kill us all? Why, gentlemen, I think you are as gallant and as brave men as live; that you can fight as bravely in a good cause, man for man, as any other people living; that you have shown yourselves capable of this upon various occasions; but, man for man, you are not better than we are, and there are not so many of you as there are of us. [Loud cheering.] You will never make much of a hand at whipping us. If we were fewer in numbers than you, I think that you could whip us; if we were equal it would likely be a drawn battle; but being inferior in numbers, you will make nothing by attempting to master us.
THE ORDINANCE OF ‘87
But perhaps I have addressed myself as long, or longer, to the Kentuckians than I ought to have done inasmuch as I have said that whatever course you take we intend in the end to beat you. I propose to address a few remarks to our friends by way of discussing with them the best means of keeping that promise, that I have in good faith made. [Long continued applause.]
It may appear a little episodical for me to mention the topic of which I shall speak now. It is a favorite proposition of Douglas’ that the interference of the General Government, through the Ordinance of ’87, or through any other act of the General Government, never has made or ever can make a Free State; that the Ordinance of ’87 did not make Free States of Ohio, Indiana or Illinois. That these States are free upon his ``great principle’’ of Popular Sovereignty, because the people of those several States have chosen to make them so. At Columbus, and probably here, he undertook to compliment the people that they themselves havePage 455made the State of Ohio free and that the Ordinance of ’87 was not entitled in any degree to divide the honor with them. I have no doubt that the people of the State of Ohio did make her free according to their own will and judgment, but let the facts be remembered.
In 1802, I believe, it was you who made your first constitution, with the clause prohibiting slavery, and you did it I suppose very nearly unanimously, but you should bear in mind that you — -speaking of you as one people — -that you did so unembarrassed by the actual presence of the institution amongst you; that you made it a Free State, not with the embarrassment upon you of already having among you many slaves, which if they had been here, and you had sought to make a Free State, you would not know what to do with. If they had been among you, embarrassing difficulties, most probably, would have induced you to tolerate a slave constitution instead of a free one, as indeed these very difficulties have constrained every people on this continent who have adopted slavery.
Pray what was it that made you free? What kept you free? Did you not find your country free when you came to decide that Ohio should be a Free State? It is important to enquire by what reason you found it so? Let us take an illustration between the States of Ohio and Kentucky. Kentucky is separated by this river Ohio, not a mile wide. A portion of Kentucky, by reason of the course of the Ohio, is further north than this portion of Ohio in which we now stand. Kentucky is entirely covered with slavery — -Ohio is entirely free from it. What made that difference? Was it climate? No! A portion of Kentucky was further north than this portion of Ohio. Was it soil? No! There is nothing in the soil of the one more favorable to slave labor than the other. It was not climate or soil that caused one side of the line to be entirely covered with slavery and the other side free of it. What was it? Study over it. Tell us, if you can, in all the range of conjecture, if there be anything you can conceive of that made that difference, other than that there was no law of any sort keeping it out of Kentucky? while the Ordinance of ’87 kept it out of Ohio. If there is any other reason than this, I confess that it is wholly beyond my power to conceive of it. This, then, I offer to combat the idea that that ordinance has never made any State free.
I don’t stop at this illustration. I come to the State of Indiana; and what I have said as between Kentucky and Ohio I repeat as between Indiana and Kentucky; it is equally applicable. One additional argument is applicable also to Indiana. In her TerritorialPage 456condition she more than once petitioned Congress to abrogate the ordinance entirely, or at least so far as to suspend its operation for a time, in order that they should exercise the ``Popular Sovereignty’’ of having slaves if they wanted them. The men then controlling the General Government, imitating the men of the Revolution, refused Indiana that privilege. And so we have the evidence that Indiana supposed she could have slaves, if it were not for that ordinance that she besought Congress to put that barrier out of the way; that Congress refused to do so, and it all ended at last in Indiana being a Free State. Tell me not, then, that the Ordinance of ’87 had nothing to do with making Indiana a free state, when we find some men chafing against and only restrained by that barrier.
Come down again to our State of Illinois. The great Northwest Territory including Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin, was acquired, first I believe by the British Government, in part at least, from the French. Before the establishment of our independence, it became a part of Virginia, enabling Virginia afterwards to transfer it to the general government. There were French settlements in what is now Illinois, and at the same time there were French settlements in what is now Missouri — -in the tract of country that was not purchased till about 1803. In these French settlements negro slavery had existed for many years — -perhaps more than a hundred, if not as much as two hundred years — -at Kaskaskia in Illinois, and at St. Genevieve, or Cape Girardeau, perhaps, in Missouri. The number of slaves was not very great, but there was about the same number in each place. They were there when we acquired the Territory. There was no effort made to break up the relation of master and slave and even the Ordinance of 1787 was not so enforced as to destroy that slavery in Illinois; nor did the Ordinance apply to Missouri at all.
What I want to ask your attention to, at this point, is that Illinois and Missouri came into the Union about the same time, Illinois in the latter part of 1818, and Missouri, after a struggle, I believe some time in 1820. They had been filling up with American people about the same period of time; their progress enabling them to come into the Union [at] about the same [time].  At the end of that ten years, in which they had been so preparing, (for it was about that period of time) the number of slaves in Illinois had actually decreased; while in Missouri, beginning with very few, at the end of that ten years, there were about ten thousand. This being so, and it being remembered that Missouri and Illinois are, toPage 457a certain extent, in the same parallel of latitude — -that the Northern half of Missouri and the Southern half of Illinois are in the same parallel of latitude — -so that climate would have the same effect upon one as upon the other, and that in the soil there is no material difference so far as bears upon the question of slavery being settled upon one or the other — -there being none of those natural causes to produce a difference in filling them, and yet there being a broad difference in their filling up, we are led again to inquire what was the cause of that difference.
It is most natural to say that in Missouri there was no law to keep that country from filling up with slaves, while in Illinois there was the Ordinance of ’87. The Ordinance being there, slavery decreased during that ten years — -the Ordinance not being in the other, it increased from a few to ten thousand. Can anybody doubt the reason of the difference?
I think all these facts most abundantly prove that my friend Judge Douglas’ proposition, that the Ordinance of ’87 or the national restriction of slavery, never had a tendency to make a Free State, is a fallacy — -a proposition without the shadow or substance of truth about it.
POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY CAUSING FREEDOM.
Douglas sometimes says that all the States (and it is part of this same proposition I have been discussing) that have become free, have become so upon his ``great principle’’ — -that the State of Illinois itself came into the Union as a slave State, and that the people upon the ``great principle’’ of Popular Sovereignty have since made it a Free State. Allow me but a little while to state to you what facts there are to justify him in saying that Illinois came into the Union as a Slave State.
I have mentioned to you that there were a few old French slaves there. They numbered, I think, one or two hundred. Besides that there had been a Territorial law for indenturing black persons. Under that law, in violation of the Ordinance of ’87, but without any enforcement of the Ordinance to overthrow the system, there had been a small number of slaves introduced as indentured persons. Owing to this the clause for the prohibition of slavery, was slightly modified. Instead of running like yours, that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except for crime of which the party shall have been duly convicted, should exist in the State, they said that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should thereafter be introduced, and that the children of indentured servants should be born free; and nothing was said about the few old French slaves.
Page 458Out of this fact, that the clause for prohibiting slavery was modified because of the actual presence of it, Douglas asserts again and again that Illinois came into the Union as a Slave State. How far the facts sustain the conclusion that he draws, it is for intelligent and impartial men to decide. I leave it with you with these remarks, worthy of being remembered, that that little thing, those few indentured servants being there, was of itself sufficient to modify a Constitution made by a people ardently desiring to have a free Constitution; showing the power of the actual presence of the institution of slavery to prevent any people, however anxious to make a Free State, from making it perfectly so.
I have been detaining you longer perhaps than I ought to do. [Long and repeated cries of ``go on.’’]
I am in some doubt whether to introduce another topic upon which I could talk awhile. [Cries of ``Go on,’’ and ``Give us it.’’] It is this then. Douglas’ Popular Sovereignty as a principle, is simply this: If one man chooses to make a slave of another man, neither that other man or anybody else has a right to object. [Cheers and laughter.] Apply it to government, as he seeks to apply it and it is this — -if, in a new Territory, into which a few people are beginning to enter for the purpose of making their homes, they choose to either exclude slavery from their limits, or to establish it there, however one or the other may affect the persons to be enslaved, or the infinitely greater number of persons who are afterwards to inhabit that Territory, or the other members of the family of communities, of which they are but an incipient member, or the general head of the family of states as parent of all — -however their action may affect one or the other of these, there is no power or right to interfere. That is Douglas’ Popular sovereignty in the world. I think a definition of popular sovereignty, in the abstract, would be about this — -that each man shall do precisely as he pleases with himself, and with all those things which exclusively concern him. Applied in government, this principle would be, that a general government shall do all those things which pertain to it, and all the local governments shall do precisely as they please in respect to those matters which exclusively concern them.
Douglas looks upon slavery as so insignificant that the people must decide that question for themselves, and yet they are not fit to decide who shall be their Governor, Judge or secretary, or who shall be any of their officers. These are vast national matters inPage 459his estimation but the little matter in his estimation, is that of planting slavery there. That is purely of local interest, which nobody should be allowed to say a word about. [Applause.]
Labor is the great source from which nearly all, if not all, human comforts and necessities are drawn. There is a difference in opinion about the elements of labor in society. Some men assume that there is a necessary connection between capital and labor, and that connection draws within it the whole of the labor of the community. They assume that nobody works unless capital excites them to work. They begin next to consider what is the best way. They say that there are but two ways; one is to hire men and to allure them to labor by their consent; the other is to buy the men and drive them to it, and that is slavery. Having assumed that, they proceed to discuss the question of whether the laborers themselves are better off in the condition of slaves or of hired laborers, and they usually decide that they are better off in the condition of slaves.
In the first place, I say, that the whole thing is a mistake. That there is a certain relation between capital and labor, I admit. That it does exist, and rightfully exists, I think is true. That men who are industrious, and sober, and honest in the pursuit of their own interests should after a while accumulate capital, and after that should be allowed to enjoy it in peace, and also if they should choose when they have accumulated it to use it to save themselves from actual labor and hire other people to labor for them is right. In doing so they do not wrong the man they employ, for they find men who have not of their own land to work upon, or shops to work in, and who are benefited by working for others, hired laborers, receiving their capital for it. Thus a few men that own capital, hire a few others, and these establish the relation of capital and labor rightfully. A relation of which I make no complaint. But I insist that that relation after all does not embrace more than one-eighth of the labor of the country.
The speaker proceeded to argue that the hired laborer with his ability to become an employer, must have every precedence over him who labors under the inducement of force.  He continued:
Page 460HOW TO WIN THE FIGHT.
I have taken upon myself in the name of some of you to say, that we expect upon these principles to ultimately beat them. In order to do so, I think we want and must have a national policy in regard to the institution of slavery, that acknowledges and deals with that institution as being wrong. (Loud cheering) Whoever desires the prevention of the spread of slavery and the nationalization of that institution, yields all, when he yields to any policy that either recognizes slavery as being right, or as being an indifferent thing. Nothing will make you successful but setting up a policy which shall treat the thing as being wrong. When I say this, I do not mean to say that this general government is charged with the duty of redressing or preventing all the wrongs in the world; but I do think that it is charged with the duty of preventing and redressing all wrongs which are wrongs to itself. This government is expressly charged with the duty of providing for the general welfare. We believe that the spreading out and perpetuity of the institution of slavery impairs the general welfare. We believe — -nay, we know, that that is the only thing that has ever threatened the perpetuity of the Union itself. The only thing which has ever menaced the destruction of the government under which we live, is this very thing. To repress this thing, we think is providing for the general welfare. Our friends in Kentucky differ from us. We need not make our argument for them, but we who think it is wrong in all its relations, or in some of them at least, must decide as to our own actions, and our own course, upon our own judgment.
I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists, because the constitution forbids it, and the general welfare does not require us to do so. We must not withhold an efficient fugitive slave law because the constitution requires us, as I understand it, not to withhold such a law. But we must prevent the outspreading of the institution, because neither the constitution nor general welfare requires us to extent it. We must prevent the revival of the African slave trade and the enacting by Congress of a territorial slave code. We must prevent each of these things being done by either Congresses or courts. The people of these United States are the rightful masters of both Congresses and courts (Applause) not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert that constitution. (Applause.)
To do these things we must employ instrumentalities. We mustPage 461hold conventions; we must adopt platforms if we conform to ordinary custom; we must nominate candidates, and we must carry elections. In all these things, I think that we ought to keep in view our real purpose, and in none do anything that stands adverse to our purpose. If we shall adopt a platform that fails to recognize or express our purpose, or elect a man that declares himself inimical to our purpose, we not only take nothing by our success, but we tacitly admit that we act upon no [other]  principle than a desire to have ``the loaves and fishes,’’ by which, in the end our apparent success is really an injury to us.
I know that it is very desirable with me, as with everybody else, that all the elements of the Opposition shall unite in the next Presidential election and in all future time. I am anxious that that should be, but there are things seriously to be considered in relation to that matter. If the terms can be arranged, I am in favor of the Union. But suppose we shall take up some man and put him upon one end or the other of the ticket, who declares himself against us in regard to the prevention of the spread of slavery — -who turns up his nose and says he is tired of hearing anything about it, who is more against us than against the enemy, what will be the issue? Why he will get no slave states after all — -he has tried that already until being beat is the rule for him. If we nominate him upon that ground, he will not carry a slave state; and not only so, but that portion of our men who are high strung upon the principle we really fight for, will not go for him, and he won’t get a single electoral vote anywhere except, perhaps, in the state of Maryland. There is no use in saying to us that we are stubborn and obstinate, because we won’t do some such thing as this. We cannot do it. We cannot get our men to vote it. I speak by the card, that we cannot give the state of Illinois in such case by fifty thousand. We would be flatter down than the ``Negro Democracy’’ themselves have the heart to wish to see us.
After saying this much, let me say a little on the other side. There are plenty of men in the slave states that are altogether good enough for me to be either President or Vice President, provided they will profess their sympathy with our purpose, and will place themselves on the ground that our men, upon principle, can vote for them. There are scores of them, good men in their character for intelligence and talent and integrity. If such a one will place himself upon the right ground I am for his occupying one place upon the next Republican or Opposition ticket. [Applause] I will heartily go for him. But, unless he does so place himself, I think it aPage 462matter of perfect nonsense to attempt to bring about a union upon any other basis; that if a union be made, the elements will scatter so that there can be no success for such a ticket, nor anything like success. The good old maxims of the Bible are applicable, and truly applicable to human affairs, and in this as in other things, we may say here that he who is not for us is against us; he who gathereth not with us scattereth. [Applause] I should be glad to have some of the many good, and able, and noble men of the south to place themselves where we can confer upon them the high honor of an election upon one or the other end of our ticket. It would do my soul good to do that thing. It would enable us to teach them that inasmuch as we select one of their own number to carry out our principles, we are free from the charge that we mean more than we say.
But, my friends I have detained you much longer than I expected to do. I believe I may do myself the compliment to say that you have stayed and heard me with great patience, for which I return you my most sincere thanks.