a State had a right, at its own mad will, to break up this Union. As a reader of congressional speeches, and a student of what was said by the political teachers of that day, he was no stranger to those marvellous efforts of Daniel Webster, when in reply to the treasonable pretensions of nullification, that great orator of Massachusetts asserted the indestructibility of the Union, and the folly of those who would assail it. On the subject of Slavery, he drew from the experience of his own family and the warnings of his own conscience. It was natural, therefore, that one of his earliest acts in the legislature of Illinois should have been a protest in the name of Liberty.

At a later day, he became a representative in Congress for a single term, beginning in December 1847, being the only Whig representative from Illinois. His speeches during this brief period have many of the characteristics of his later productions. They are argumentative, logical, and spirited, with that quaint humor and sinewy sententiousness which belonged to his nature. His votes were constant against Slavery. For the Wilmot Proviso, he had voted, according to his own statement, "in one way and another about forty times." His vote is recorded against the pretence that slaves were property under the constituion. From Congress he again passed to his profession. The day was at hand, when all his powers, enlarged by experience and quickened to their highest activity, would be needed to repel that haughty domination which was already so menacing to the Republic.

The first field of conflict was in his own State, with no

less an antagonist than Stephen A. Douglas, unhappily at that time in alliance with the Slave Power. The too famous Kansas and Nebraska bill, introduced by him into the Senate, assumed to set aside the venerable safeguard of freedom in the territory west of Missouri, under the pretence of allowing the inhabitants "to vote Slavery up or to vote it down" according to their pleasure, and this barbarous privilege was called by the fancy name of Popular Sovereignty. The future President did not hesitate to denounce this most baleful measure in a series of popular addresses, where truth, sentiment, humor, and argument all were blended. As the conflict continued, he was brought forward as a candidate for the Senate against the able author of this measure. The debate that ensued is one of the most memorable in our political history, whether we consider the principles involved, or the way in which it was conducted.

It commenced with a close, well-woven speech from the future President, in which he used words which showed his insight into the actual condition of things, as follows: "A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this Government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved, I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other." Only a few days before his death, when I asked him if at the time he had any doubt about this remark, he replied, "Not in the least. It was plainly true, and time has justified. me." With like plainness he exposed the Douglas pre

tence of Popular Sovereignty as meaning simply "that. if any one man shall choose to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object," and he announced his belief in "the existence of a conspiracy to perpetuate and nationalize Slavery," of which the Kansas and Nebraska bill, and the Dred Scott decision were essential parts. Such was the character of this debate at the beginning, and so it continued on the lips of our champion to the end.

But the topic to which the future President returned with the most frequency, and to which he clung with all the grasp of his soul, was the practical character of the Declaration of Independence in announcing the Liberty and Equality of all men. These were no idle words, but substantial truth binding on the conscience of mankind. I know not if this grand pertinacity has been noticed before; but I deem it my duty to say, that to my mind it is by far the most important feature of that controversy, and one of the most interesting incidents in the biography of the speaker. The words which he then uttered live after him, and nobody can hear of that championship without feeling a new motive to fidelity in the cause of Liberty and Equality.

As early as 1854, in a speech at Peoria, against the Kansas and Nebraska Bill, after denouncing Slavery as a "monstrous injustice," which enables the enemies of free institutions to taunt us as hypocrites, and causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, he complains especially that "it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very funda

mental principles of civil liberty, criticising the Declaration of Independence." Thus, according to him, was criticism of the Declaration of Independence the climax of infidelity as a citizen.

Mr. Douglas opened the debate on his side July 9, 1858, at Chicago, by a speech, in which he said, among other things, "I am opposed to negro equality. I repeat, that this nation is a white people. I am opposed to taking any step that recognizes the negro man or the Indian as the equal of the white man. I am opposed to giving him a voice in the administration of the Government." Thus was the case stated on the side of Slavery.

To this speech the future President replied the next evening, and he did not forget his championship of the Declaration. After quoting the words "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” he proceeds to say:

"That is the electric cord in the Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic and liberty-loving men together as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world. *** I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions, where will it stop? If one man says it does not mean the negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man? If that Declaration is not the truth, let us get the Statute-book in which we find it and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do it? If it is not true, let us tear it out [cries of no, no"]; let us stick to it then; let us stand firmly by it then.”

66

Noble words! worthy of perpetual memory. And he finished his speech on this occasion by saying:

“I leave you, hoping that the lamp of Liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal."

He has left us now, and for the last time, and I catch the closing benediction of that speech, already sounding through the ages, like a choral harmony.

The debate continued from place to place in Illinois. At Bloomington, July 16, 1858, Mr. Douglas again denied that colored persons could be citizens, and then broke forth upon the champion of the Declaration of Independence:

"I will not quarrel with Mr. Lincoln for his views on that subject. I have no doubt he is conscientious in them. I have not the slightest idea but that he conscientiously believes that a negro ought to enjoy and exercise all the rights and privileges given to white men ; but I do not agree with him. I believe that this Government of ours was founded on the white basis. I believe that it was established by white men. I do not believe that it was the design of the signers of the Declaration of Independence or the framers of the Constitution to include negroes, Indians, or other inferior races, with white men as citizens. He wants them to vote. I am opposed to it. If they had a vote, I reckon they would all vote for him in preference to me, entertaining the views I do!"

* *

Then again, in another speech at Springfield, the next day, Mr. Douglas repeated his denial that the colored