falsifies as much as he who knowingly tells a falsehood。 I want
to call your attention to a little discussion on that branch of
the case； and the evidence which brought my mind to the
conclusion which I expressed as my belief。 If； in arraying that
evidence I had stated anything which was false or erroneous； it
needed but that Judge Douglas should point it out； and I would
have taken it back； with all the kindness in the world。 I do not
deal in that way。 If I have brought forward anything not a fact；
if he will point it out； it will not even ruffle me to take it
back。 But if he will not point out anything erroneous in the
evidence； is it not rather for him to show； by a comparison of
the evidence； that I have reasoned falsely； than to call the
〃kind； amiable； intelligent gentleman〃 a liar？ If I have
reasoned to a false conclusion； it is the vocation of an able
debater to show by argument that I have wandered to an erroneous
conclusion。 I want to ask your attention to a portion of the
Nebraska Bill； which Judge Douglas has quoted：
〃It being the true intent and meaning of this Act； not to
legislate slavery into any Territory or State； nor to exclude it
therefrom； but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form
and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way；
subject only to the Constitution of the United States。〃
Thereupon Judge Douglas and others began to argue in favor of
〃popular sovereignty；〃 the right of the people to have slaves if
they wanted them； and to exclude slavery if they did not want
them。 〃But；〃 said； in substance； a Senator from Ohio （Mr。 Chase；
I believe）；
〃we more than suspect that you do not mean to allow the people to
exclude slavery if they wish to； and if you do mean it； accept an
amendment which I propose； expressly authorizing the people to
exclude slavery。〃
I believe I have the amendment here before me； which was offered；
and under which the people of the Territory； through their
representatives； might； if they saw fit； prohibit the existence
of slavery therein。 And now I state it as a fact； to be taken
back if there is any mistake about it； that Judge Douglas and
those acting with him voted that amendment down。 I now think
that those men who voted it down had a real reason for doing so。
They know what that reason was。 It looks to us； since we have
seen the Dred Scott decision pronounced； holding that 〃under the
Constitution〃 the people cannot exclude slavery； I say it looks
to outsiders； poor； simple； 〃amiable； intelligent gentlemen；〃 as
though the niche was left as a place to put that Dred Scott
decision in；a niche which would have been spoiled by adopting
the amendment。 And now； I say again； if this was not the reason；
it will avail the Judge much more to calmly and good…humoredly
point out to these people what that other reason was for voting
the amendment down； than； swelling himself up； to vociferate that
he may be provoked to call somebody a liar。
Again： There is in that same quotation from the Nebraska Bill
this clause： 〃It being the true intent and meaning of this bill
not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State。〃 I have
always been puzzled to know what business the word 〃State〃 had in
that connection。 Judge Douglas knows。 He put it there。 He
knows what he put it there for。 We outsiders cannot say what he
put it there for。 The law they were passing was not about
States； and was not making provisions for States。 What was it
placed there for？ After seeing the Dred Scott decision； which
holds that the people cannot exclude slavery from a Territory； if
another Dred Scott decision shall come； holding that they cannot
exclude it from a State； we shall discover that when the word was
originally put there； it was in view of something which was to
come in due time； we shall see that it was the other half of
something。 I now say again； if there is any different reason for
putting it there； Judge Douglas； in a good…humored way； without
calling anybody a liar； can tell what the reason was。
When the Judge spoke at Clinton； he came very near making a
charge of falsehood against me。 He used； as I found it printed
in a newspaper； which； I remember； was very nearly like the real
speech； the following language：
〃I did not answer the charge ＇of conspiracy＇ before； for the
reason that I did not suppose there was a man in America with a
heart so corrupt as to believe such a charge could be true。 I
have too much respect for Mr。 Lincoln to suppose he is serious in
making the charge。〃
I confess this is rather a curious view； that out of respect for
me he should consider I was making what I deemed rather a grave
charge in fun。 I confess it strikes me rather strangely。 But I
let it pass。 As the Judge did not for a moment believe that
there was a man in America whose heart was so 〃corrupt〃 as to
make such a charge； and as he places me among the 〃men in
America〃 who have hearts base enough to make such a charge； I
hope he will excuse me if I hunt out another charge very like
this； and if it should turn out that in hunting I should find
that other； and it should turn out to be Judge Douglas himself
who made it； I hope he will reconsider this question of the deep
corruption of heart he has thought fit to ascribe to me。 In
Judge Douglas's speech of March 22； 1858； which I hold in my
hand； he says：
〃In this connection there is another topic to which I desire to
allude。 I seldom refer to the course of newspapers； or notice
the articles which they publish in regard to myself； but the
course of the Washington Union has been so extraordinary for the
last two or three months； that I think it well enough to make
some allusion to it。 It has read me out of the Democratic party
every other day； at least for two or three months； and keeps
reading me out； and； as if it had not succeeded； still continues
to read me out； using such terms as 'traitor；' 'renegade；'
'deserter；' and other kind and polite epithets of that nature。
Sir； I have no vindication to make of my Democracy against the
Washington Union； or any other newspapers。 I am willing to allow
my history and action for the last twenty years to speak for
themselves as to my political principles and my fidelity to
political obligations。 The Washington Union has a personal
grievance。 When its editor was nominated for public printer； I
declined to vote for him； and stated that at some time I might
give my reasons for doing so。 Since I declined to give that
vote； this scurrilous abuse； these vindictive and constant
attacks have been repeated almost daily on me。 Will any friend
from Michigan read the article to which I allude？〃
This is a part of the speech。 You must excuse me from reading
the entire article of the Washington Union； as Mr。 Stuart read it
for Mr。 Douglas。 The Judge goes on and sums up； as I think；
correctly：
〃Mr。 President； you here find several distinct propositions
advanced boldly by the Washington Union editorially； and
apparently authoritatively； and any man who questions any of them
is denounced as an Abolitionist； a Free…soiler； a fanatic。 The
propositions are； first； that the primary object of all
government at its original institution is the protection of
person and property； second； that the Constitution of the United
States declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled
to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several
States； and that； therefore； thirdly； all State laws； whether
organic or otherwise； which prohibit the citizens of one State
from settling in another with their slave property； and
especially declaring it forfeited； are direct violations of the
original intention of the government and Constitution of the
United States； and； fourth； that the emancipation of the slaves
of the Northern States was a gross outrage of the rights of
property； inasmuch as it was involuntarily done on the part of
the owner。
〃Remember that this article was published in the Union on the
17th of November； and on the 18th appeared the first article
giving the adhesion of the Union； to the Lecompton Constitution。
It was in these words：
〃KANSAS AND HER CONSTITUTION。The vexed question is settled。
The problem is saved。 The dead point of danger is passed。 All
serious trouble to Kansas affairs is over and gone 。。。〃
And a column nearly of the same sort。 Then； when you come to
look into the Lecompton Constitution； you find the same doctrine
incorporated in it which was put forth editorially in the Union。
What is it？
〃ARTICLE 7； Section I。 The right of property is before and
higher than any constitutional sanction； and the right of the
owner of a slave to such slave and its increase is the same and
as inviolable as the right of the owner of any property
whatever。〃
Then in the schedule is a provision that the Constitution may be
amended after 1864 by a two…thirds vote：
〃But no alteration shall be made to affect the right of property
in the ownership of slaves。〃
〃It will be seen by these clauses in the Lecompton Constitution
that they are identical in spirit with the authoritative article
in the Washington Union of the day previous to its indorsement of
this Constitution。〃
I pass over some portions of the speech； and I hope that any one
who feels interested in this matter will read the entire section
of the speech； and see whether I do the Judge injustice。 He
proceeds：
〃When I saw that article in the Union of the 17th of November；
followed by the glorification of the Lecompton Constitution on
the 10th of November； and this clause in the Constitution
asserting the doctrine that a State has no right to prohibit
slavery within its limits； I saw that there was a fatal blow
being struck at the sovereignty of the States of this Union。〃
I stop the