the Senate on the part of the Executive is ing tranquillity and good feeling. These subversive of the principles of our Con- measures passed on the joint action of the stitution. The Executive department is two parties. They rested on the great independent of the Senate, and the Senate principle that the people of each State and is independent of the President. In mat- each Territory should be left perfectly free ters of legislation the President has a veto to form and regulate their domestic instion the action of the Senate, and in ap- tutions to suit themselves. You Whigs, and pointments and treaties the Senate has a we Democrats justified them in that prinveto on the President. He has no more ciple. In 1854, when it became necessary right to tell me how I shall vote on his ap- to organize the Territories of Kansas and pointments than I have to tell him wheth- Nebraska, I brought forward the bill on er he shall veto or approve a bill that the the same principle. In the Kansas- NeSenate has passed. Whenever you recog-braska bill you find it declared to be the nize the right of the Executive to say to a true intent and meaning of the act not to Senator, "Do this, or I will take off the legislate slavery into any State or Terriheads of your friends," you convert this tory, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to Government from a republic into a despot- leave the people thereof perfectly free to ism. Whenever you recognize the right of form and regulate their domestic institua President to say to a member of Congress, tions in their own way. I stand on that "Vote as I tell you, or I will bring a pow-same platform in 1858 that I did in 1850, er to bear against you at home which will 1854, and 1856. The Washington Union, crush you," you destroy the independence pretending to be the organ of the Adminof the representative, and convert him in-istration, in the number of the 5th of this to a tool of Executive power. I resisted month, devotes three columns and a half this invasion of the constitutional rights of to establish these propositions: First, that a Senator, and I intend to resist it as long Douglas, in his Freeport speech, held the as I have a voice to speak, or a vote to give. same doctrine that he did in his Nebraska Yet, Mr. Buchanan cannot provoke me to bill in 1854; second, that in 1854 Douglas abandon one iota of Democratic principles justified the Nebraska bill upon the ground out of revenge or hostility to his course. that it was based upon the same principle I stand by the platform of the Democratic as Clay's Compromise measures of 1850. party, and by its organization, and sup- The Union thus proved that Douglas was port its nominees. If there are any who the same in 1858 that he was in 1856, 1854, choose to bolt, the fact only shows that they and 1850, and consequently argued that he are not as good Democrats as I am. was never a Democrat. Is it not funny My friends, there never was a time when that I was never a Democrat? There is it was as important for the Democratic no pretense that I have changed a hair's party, for all national men, to rally and breadth. The Union proves by my speeches stand together as it is to-day. We find all that I explained the Compromise measures sectional men giving up past differences of 1850 just as I do now, and that I exand continuing the one question of slavery, plained the Kansas and Nebraska bill in and when we find sectional men thus unit- 1854 just as I did in my Freeport speech, ing, we should unite to resist them and and yet says that I am not a Democrat, their treasonable designs. Such was the and cannot be trusted, because I have not case in 1850, when Clay left the quiet and changed during the whole of that time. peace of his home, and again entered up- It has occurred to me that in 1854 the auon public life to quell agitation and restore thor of the Kansas and Nebraska bill was peace to a distracted Union. Then we considered a pretty good Democrat. It has Democrats, with Cass at our head, wel- occurred to me that in 1856, when I was excomed Henry Clay, whom the whole na-erting every nerve and every energy for tion regarded as having been preserved by God for the times. He became our leader in that great fight, and we rallied around him the same as the Whigs rallied around old Hickory in 1832, to put down nullification. Thus you see that whilst Whigs and Democrats fought fearlessly in old times about banks, the tariff, distribution, the specie circular, and the sub-treasury, all united as a band of brothers when the peace, harmony, or integrity of the Union was imperilled. It was so in 1850, when Abolitionism had even so far divided this country, North and South, as to endanger the peace of the Union; Whigs and Democrats united in establishing the Compromise measures of that year, and restor

James Buchanan, standing on the same platform then that I do now, that I was a pretty good Democrat. They now tell me that I am not a Democrat, because I assert that the people of a Territory, as well as those of a State, have the right to decide for themselves whether slavery can or cannot exist in such Territory. Let me read what James Buchanan said on that point when he accepted the Democratic nomination for the Presidency in 1856. In his letter of acceptance, he used the following language:

"The recent legislation of Congress respecting domestic slavery, derived as it has been from the original and pure fountain of legitimate political power, the will of the majority, promises ere long to allay the dan.

that we should extend those privileges to them. The question then arises what are these privileges, and what is the nature and extent of them. My answer is that that is a question which each State must answer for itself. We in Illinois have decided it for ourselves. We tried slavery, kept it up for twelve years, and finding that it was not profitable, we abolished it for that reason, and became a free State. We adopted in its stead the policy that a negro in this State shall not be a slave and shall not be a citizen. We have a right to adopt that policy. For my part I think it is a wise and sound policy for us. You in Missouri must judge for yourselves whether it is a wise policy for you. If you choose to follow our example, very good; if you reject it, still well, it is your business, not ours. So with Kentucky. Let Kentucky adopt a policy to suit herself. If we do not like it we will keep away from it, and if she does not like ours let her stay at home, mind her own business and let us alone. If the people of all the States will act on that great principle, and each State mind its own business, attend to its own affairs, take care of its own negroes and not meddle with its neighbors, then there will be peace between the North and the South, the East and the West, throughout the whole Union. Why can we not thus have peace? Why should we thus allow a sectional party to agitate this country, to array the North against the South, and convert us into enemies instead of friends, merely that a few ambitious men may ride into power on a sectional hobby? How long is it since these ambitious Northern men wished for a sectional organization? Did any one of them dream of a sectional party as long as the North was the weaker section and the South the stronger? Then all were opposed to sectional parties; but the moment the North obtained the majority in the House and Senate by the admission of California, and could elect a President without the aid of Southern votes, that moment ambitious Northern men formed a scheme to excite the North against the South, and make the people be governed in their votes by geographical lines, thinking that the North, being the stronger section, would out-vote the South, and consequently they, the leaders, would ride into office on a sectional hobby. I am told that my hour is out. It was very short.

self have met in these joint discussions, and he has been gradually improving in regard to his war with the administration. At Quincy, day before yesterday, he was a little more severe upon the Administration than I had heard him upon any occasion, and I took pains to compliment him for it. I then told him to "Give it to them with all the power he had;" and as some of them were present, I told them I would be very much obliged if they would give it to him in about the same way. I take it he has now vastly improved upon the attack he made then upon the Administration. I flatter myself he has really taken my advice on this subject. All I can say now is to recommend to him and to them what I then commended to prosecute the war against one another in the most vigorous manner. I say to them again-" Go it, husband!— Go it, bear!"

There is one other thing I will mention before I leave this branch of the discussionalthough I do not consider it much of my business, any way. I refer to that part of the Judge's remarks where he undertakes to involve Mr. Buchanan in an inconsistency. He reads something from Mr. Buchanan, from which he undertakes to involve him in an inconsistency; and he gets something of a cheer for having done so. I would only remind the Judge that while he is very valiantly fighting for the Nebraska bill and the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, it has been but a little while since he was the valiant advocate of the Missouri Compromise. I want to know if Buchanan has not as much right to be inconsistent as Douglas has? Has Douglas the exclusive right, in this country, of being on all sides of all questions? Is nobody allowed that high privilege but himself? Is he to have an entire monopoly on that subject?

So far as Judge Douglas addressed his speech to me, or so far as it was about me, it is my business to pay some attention to it. I have heard the Judge state two or three times what he has stated to-day-that in a speech which I made at Springfield, Illinois, I had in a very especial manner complained that the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case had decided that a negro could never be a citizen of the United States. I have omitted by some accident heretofore to analyze this statement, and it is required of me to notice it now. In point of fact it is untrue. I never have complained especially of the Dred Scot decision Mr. Lincoln's Reply. because it held that a negro could not be a LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:-I have been citizen, and the Judge is always wrong somewhat, in my own mind, complimented when he says I ever did so complain of it. I by a large portion of Judge Douglas's have the speech here, and I will thank him speech-I mean that portion which he de- or any of his friends to show where I said votes to the controversy between himself that a negro should be a citizen, and comand the present Administration. This is plained especially of the Dred Scott dethe seventh time Judge Douglas and my-cision because it declared he could not

be one.

He

You have heard him frequently allude to my controversy with him in regard to the Declaration of Independence. I confess that I have had a struggle with Judge Douglas on that matter, and I will try briefly to place myself right in regard to it on this occasion. I said-and it is between the extracts Judge Douglas has taken from this speech and put in his published speeches:

I have done no such thing, and | ple as may be. I am quite aware what the Judge Douglas so persistently insisting Judge's object is here by all these allusions. that I have done so, has strongly impressed He knows that we are before an audience, me with the belief of a predetermination having strong sympathies southward by reon his part to misrepresent me. He could lationship, place of birth, and so on. not get his foundation for insisting that I desires to place me in an extremely Abowas in favor of this negro equality any lition attitude. He read upon a former where else as well as he could by assuming occasion, and alludes without reading tothat untrue proposition. Let me tell this day, to a portion of a speech which I deaudience what is true in regard to that livered in Chicago. In his quotations matter; and the means by which they may from that speech, as he has made them upcorrect me if I do not tell them truly is by on former occasions, the extracts were taa recurrence to the speech itself. I spoke ken in such a way as, I suppose, brings of the Dred Scott decision in my Spring- them within the definition of what is field speech, and I was then endeavoring to called garbling-taking portions of a speech prove that the Dred Scott decision was a which, when taken by themselves, do not portion of a system or scheme to make present the entire sense of the speaker as slavery national in this country. I pointed expressed at the time. I propose, thereout what things had been decided by the fore, out of that same speech, to show how court. I mentioned as a fact that they had one portion of it which he skipped over decided that a negro could not be a citi- (taking an extract before and an extract zen-that they had done so, as I supposed, after) will give a different idea, and the to deprive the negro, under all circum- true idea I intended to convey. It will stances, of the remotest possibility of ever take me some little time to read it, but I becoming a citizen and claiming the rights believe I will occupy the time that way. of a citizen of the United States under a certain clause of the Constitution. I stated that, without making any complaint of it at all. I then went on and stated the other points decided in the case, viz: that the bringing of a negro into the State of Illinois and holding him in slavery for two years here was a matter in regard to which they would not decide whether it would make him free or not; that they decided the further point that taking him into a "It may be argued that there are certain United States Territory where slavery was conditions that make necessities and improhibited by act of Congress, did not pose them upon us, and to the extent that make him free, because that act of Con- a necessity is imposed upon a man he must gress, as they held, was unconstitutional. submit to it. I think that was the condiI mentioned these three things as making tion in which we found ourselves when we up the points decided in that case. I established this Government. We had mentioned them in a lump taken in con- slaves among us, we could not get our Connection with the introduction of the Ne-stitution unless we permitted them to rebraska bill, and the amendment of Chase, main in slavery, we could not secure the offered at the time, declaratory of the right good we did secure if we grasped for of the people of the Territories to exclude more; and having by necessity submitted slavery, which was voted down by the to that much, it does not destroy the prinfriends of the bill. I mentioned all these things together, as evidence tending to prove a combination and conspiracy to make the institution of slavery national. In that connection and in that way I mentioned the decision on the point that a negro could not be a citizen, and in no other connection. Out of this, Judge Douglas builds up his beautiful fabrication-of my purpose to introduce a perfect, social, and political equality between the white and black races. His assertion that I made an "especial objection" (that is his exact language) to the decision on this account, is untrue in point of fact.

ciple that is the charter of our liberties. Let the charter remain as our standard.”

Now I have upon all occasions declared as strongly as Judge Douglas against the disposition to interfere with the existing institution of slavery. You hear me read it from the same speech from which he takes garbled extracts for the purpose of proving upon me a disposition to interfere with the institution of slavery, and establish a perfect social and political equality between negroes and white people.

Allow me while upon this subject briefly to present one other extract from a speech of mine, more than a year ago, at SpringNow, while I am upon this subject, and field, in discussing this very same quesas Henry Clay has been alluded to, I de- tion, soon after Judge Douglas took his sire to place myself, in connection with ground that negroes were not included in Mr. Clay, as nearly right before this peo-[the Declaration of Independence:

fect knowledge of all this hawking at the Declaration without directly attacking it, that three years ago there never had lived a man who had ventured to assail it in the sneaking way of pretending to believe it and then asserting it did not include the said it was Chief Justice Taney in the Dred Scott case, and the next to him was our friend, Stephen A. Douglas. And now it has become the catch-word of the entire party. I would like to call upon his friends every where to consider how they have come in so short a time to view this matter in a way so entirely different from their former belief? to ask whether they are not being borne along by an irresistible current-whither, they know not?

"I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not mean to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all men were equal in color, size, intellect, moral development or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinct-negro. I believe the first man who ever ness in what they did consider all men created equal-equal in certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This they said, and this they meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, or yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit.

"They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should be familiar to all constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even, though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people, of all colors, every where."

In answer to my proposition at Galesburg last week, I see that some man in Chicago has got up a letter addressed to the Chicago Times, to show, as he professes, that somebody had said so before; and he signs himself "An Old Line Whig," if I remember correctly. In the first place I would say he was not an old line Whig. I am somewhat acquainted with old line Whigs. I was with the old line Whigs from the origin to the end of that party; There again are the sentiments I have I became pretty well acquainted with them. expressed in regard to the Declaration of and I know they always had some sense. Independence upon a former occasion-whatever else you could ascribe to them, sentiments which have been put in print I know there never was one who had not and read wherever any body cared to know what so humble an individual as myself chose to say in regard to it.

At Galesburg the other day, I said in answer to Judge Douglas, that three years ago there never had been a man, so far as I knew or believed, in the whole world, who had said that the Declaration of Independence did not include negroes in the term "all men." I reassert it to-day. I assert that Judge Douglas and all his friends may search the whole records of the country, and it will be a matter of great astonishment to me if they shall be able to find that one human being three years ago had ever uttered the astounding sentiment that the term "all men" in the Declaration did not include the negro. Do not let me be misunderstood. I know that more than three years ago there were men who, finding this assertion constantly in the way of their schemes to bring about the ascendancy and perpetuation of slavery, denied the truth of it. I know that Mr. Calhoun and all the politicians of his school denied the truth of the Declaration. I know that it ran along in the mouth of some Southern men for a period of years, ending at last in that shameful though rather forcible declaration of Pettit of Indiana, upon the floor of the United States Senate, that the Declaration of Independence was in that respect "a self-evident lie," rather than a self-evident truth. But I say, with a per

more sense than to try to show by the evidence he produces that some man had, prior to the time I named, said that negroes were not included in the term "all men in the Declaration of Independence. What is the evidence he produces? I will bring forward his evidence and let you see what he offers by way of showing that somebody more than three years ago had said negroes were not included in the Declaration. He brings forward part of a speech from Henry Clay-the part of the speech of Henry Clay which I used to bring forward to prove precisely the contrary. I guess we are surrounded to some extent to-day by the old friends of Mr. Clay, and they will be glad to hear any thing from that authority. While he was in Indiana a man presented a petition to liberate his negroes, and he (Mr. Clay) made a speech in answer to it, which I suppose he carefully wrote out himself and caused to be published. have before me an extract from that speech which constitutes the evidence this pretended "Old Line Whig" at Chicago brought forward to show that Mr. Clay didn't suppose the negro was included in the Declaration of Independence. Hear what Mr. Clay said:

I

"And what is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana, to liberate the slaves under my care in Kentucky? It is a general declaration in the act announcing to the world the independence of the thirteen