Page images

some Americans, had greatly the argument against the Adminis tration; and while I repeat this, I wish to know what there is in the opposition of Judge Douglas to the Lecompton Constitution that entitles him to be considered the only opponent to it, -as being par excellence the very quintessence of that opposition. I agree to the rightfulness of his opposition. He in the Senate and his class of men there formed the number three and no more. In the House of Representatives his class of men, the AntiLecompton Democrats, formed a number of about twenty. It took one hundred and twenty to defeat the measure, against one hundred and twelve. Of the votes of that one hundred and twenty, Judge Douglas's friends furnished twenty, to add to which there were six Americans and ninety-four Republicans. I do not say that I am precisely accurate in their numbers, but I am sufficiently so for any use I am making of it.

Why is it that twenty shall be entitled to all the credit of doing that work, and the hundred none of it? Why, if, as Judge Douglas says, the honor is to be divided, and due credit is to be given to other parties, why is just so much given as is consonant with the wishes, the interests, and advancement of the twenty? My understanding is, when a common job is done, or a common enterprise prosecuted, if I put in five dollars to your one, I have a right to take out five dollars to your one. But he does not so understand it. He declares the dividend of credit for defeating Lecompton upon a basis which seems unprecedented and incomprehensible.


Let us see. Lecompton in the raw was defeated. It afterward took a sort of cooked-up shape, and was passed in the English bill. It is said by the Judge that the defeat was a good and proper thing. If it was a good thing, why is he entiled to more credit than others, for the performance of that good ct, unless there was something in the antecedents of the Reublicans that might induce every one to expect them to join in hat good work, and at the same time, something leading them 11

to doubt that he would? Does he place his superior claim to credit, on the ground that he performed a good act which was never expected of him? He says I have a proneness for quoting Scripture. If I should do so now, it occurs that perhaps he places himself somewhat upon the ground of the parable of the lost sheep which went astray upon the mountains, and when the owner of the hundred sheep found the one that was lost, and threw it upon his shoulders, and came home rejoicing, it was said that there was more rejoicing over the one sheep that was lost and had been found, than over the ninety and nine in the fold. The application is made by the Saviour in this parable, thus: "Verily, I say unto you, there is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, than over ninety and nine just persons that need no repentance.'

And now, if the Judge claims the benefit of this parable, let him repent. Let him not come up here and say, "I am the only just person; and you are the ninety-nine sinners!" Repentance before forgiveness is a provision of the Christian system, and on that condition alone will the Republicans grant his forgiveness.


How will he prove that we have ever occupied a different position in regard to the Lecompton Constitution or any principle in it? He says he did not make his opposition on the ground as to whether it was a free or slave constitution, and he would have you understand that the Republicans made their opposition because it ultimately became a slave constitution. To make proof in favor of himself on this point, he reminds us that he opposed Lecompton before the vote was taken declaring whethe: the State was to be free or slave. But he forgets to say that ou Republican Senator, Trumbull, made a speech against Lecomp ton even before he did.

Why did he oppose it? Partly, as he declares, because th members of the Convention who framed it were not fairl elected by the people; that the people were not allowed to vot

unless they had been registered; and that the people of whole counties, in some instances, were not registered. For these reasons he declares the constitution was not an emanation, in any true sense, from the people. He also has an additional objection as to the mode of submitting the constitution back to the people. But bearing on the question of whether the delegates were fairly elected, a speech of his, made something more than twelve months ago, from this stand, becomes important. It was made a little while before the election of the delegates who made Lecompton. In that speech he declared there was every reason to hope and believe the election would be fair; and if any one failed to vote, it would be his own culpable fault.

I, a few days after, made a sort of answer to that speech. In that answer, I made, substantially, the very argument with which he combated his Lecompton adversaries in the Senate last winter. I pointed to the facts that the people could not vote without being registered, and that the time for registering had gone by. I commented on it as wonderful that Judge Douglas could be gnorant of these facts, which every one else in the nation so well knew.

I now pass from popular sovereignty and Lecompton. I may ave occasion to refer to one or both


When he was preparing his plan of campaign, Napoleon-like, New York, as appears by two speeches I have heard him liver since his arrival in Illinois, he gave special attention to a cech of mine, delivered here on the 16th of June last. He 78 that he carefully read that speech. He told us that at icago, a week ago last night, and he repeated it at Bloominglast night. Doubtless, he repeated it again to-day, though lid not hear him. In the first two places-Chicago and omington-I heard him; to-day I did not. He said he carefully examined that speech; when, he did not say; but e is no reasonable doubt it was when he was in New York,

preparing his plan of campaign. I am glad he did read it carefully. He says it was evidently prepared with great care. I freely admit it was prepared with care. I claim not to be more free from errors than others,-perhaps scarcely so much; but I was very careful not to put anything in that speech as a matter of fact, or make any inferences which did not appear to me to be true, and fully warrantable. If I had made any mistake, I was willing to be corrected; if I had drawn any inference in regard to Judge Douglas, or any one else, which was not warranted, I was fully prepared to modify it as soon as discovered. I planted myself upon the truth, and the truth only, so far as I knew it, or could be brought to know it.

Having made that speech with the most kindly feelings toward Judge Douglas, as manifested therein, I was gratified when I found that he had carefully examined it, and had detected no error of fact, nor any inference against him, nor any misrepresentations, of which he thought fit to complain. In neither of the two speeches I have mentioned, did he make any such complaint. I will thank any one who will inform me that he, ir his speech to-day, pointed out anything I had stated, respecting him, as being erroneous. I presume there is no such thing. have reason to be gratified that the care and caution used i that speech, left it so that he, most of all others interested i discovering error, has not been able to point out one thin against him which he could say was wrong. He seizes upc the doctrines he supposes to be included in that speech, ar declares that upon them will turn the issues of this campaig He then quotes, or attempts to quote, from my speech. I w not say that he wilfully misquotes, but he does fail to quc accurately. His attempt at quoting is from a passage which believe I can quote accurately from memory. I shall make t quotation now, with some comments upon it, as I have alrea said, in order that the Judge shall be left entirely without cuse for misrepresenting me. I do so now, as I hope, for last time. I do this in great caution, in order that if he repe his misrepresentation, it shall be plain to all that he does

wilfully. If, after all, he still persists, I shall be compelled to reconstruct the course I have marked out for myself, and draw upon such humble resources as I have, for a new course, better suited to the real exigences of the case. I set out, in this campaign, with the intention of conducting it strictly as a gentleman, in substance at least, if not in the outside polish. The latter I shall never be, but that which constitutes the inside of a gentleman I hope I understand, and am not less inclined to practice than others. It was my purpose and expectation that this canvass would be conducted upon principle, and with fairness on both sides, and it shall not be my fault if this purpose and expectation shall be given up.

[merged small][ocr errors]

He charges, in substance, that I invite a war of sections; that I propose all the local institutions of the different States shall become consolidated and uniform. What is there in the language of that speech which expresses such purpose, or bears such construction? I have again and again said that I would not enter into any of the States to disturb the institution of slavery. Judge Douglas said, at Bloomington, that I used anguage most able and ingenious for concealing what I really neant; and that, while I had protested against entering into the lave States, I nevertheless did mean to go on the banks of the hio, and throw missiles into Kentucky, to disturb them in heir domestic institutions.

I said, in that speech, and I meant no more, that the instituon of slavery ought to be placed in the very attitude where the amers of this Government placed it, and left it. I do not un›rstand that the framers of our Constitution left the people of e free States in the attitude of firing bombs or shells into the ve States. I was not using that passage for the purpose for ich he infers I did use it. I said, "We are now far advanced o the fifth year since a policy was created for the avowed ect, and with the confident promise, of putting an end to very agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that

« PreviousContinue »