During 1856, 1857, and 1858 the Democratic papers of Illinois and the Northwest, and Democratic speakers, including Mr. Douglas, in explaining and defending the Kansas-Nebraska Act, had been accustomed to quote arguments of southern statesmen to show that necessarily, in all communities, the local institutions must be sustained by the prevailing public sentiment, or it was useless to endeavor to maintain them. They had used this argument to prove that no matter what prohibitions Congress might enact against slavery in the territories, if the people desired to have slaves they would have them; and local courts and laws would lean toward and protect the wishes and desires of the people. So, on the other hand, if slavery was not desired, it would be as effectually excluded by an adverse public sentiment as it could be by positive law. Upon this point they quoted as the views of a gentleman deservedly high in the estimation of the people of the South, and particularly of his own state, the following remarks of the Hon. James L. Orr, of South Carolina, made in 1856, in reference to the practical operation of the Nebraska Bill, and these views were constantly presented to the people from the stump and through the press:

OPINION OF MR. ORR IN 1856.

"I say, although I deny that squatter sovereignty exists in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska by virtue of this bill, it is a matter practically of little consequence whether it does or not; and I think I shall be able to satisfy the gentleman of that. The gentleman knows that, in every slaveholding community of this Union, we have local legislation and local police regulations appertaining to that institution, without which the institution would not only be valueless but a curse to the community. Without them the slaveholder could not enforce his rights when invaded by others. And if you had no local legislation for the purpose of giving protection, the institution would be of no value. I can appeal to every gentleman upon this floor, who represents a slaveholding constituency, to attest the truth of what I have stated upon that point.

"Now, the legislative authority of a territory is invested with a discretion to vote for or against laws. We think they ought to pass laws in every territory where the territory is open to settlement, and slaveholders go there, to protect slave property. But if they decline to pass such laws what is the remedy? None, sir. If the majority of the people are opposed to the institution, and if they do not desire it engrafted upon the territory, all they have to do is simply to decline to pass laws in the territorial Legislature for its protec

tion, and then it is as well excluded as if the power was invested in the territorial Legislature, and exercised by them to prohibit it. Now I ask the gentleman what is the practical importance to result from the agitation and discussion of this question as to whether squatter sovereignty does or does not exist? Practically, it is a matter of little moment."

In June, 1857, Mr. Douglas, at the invitation of the members of the Grand Jury of the United States Court, and of other visitors at Springfield, delivered a speech at the State House upon the subject of Kansas and Utah affairs, and upon the Dred Scott decision. This speech was regarded at the time as the most thorough and complete vindication of the policy and principles of the Democratic party upon the topics embraced in it that he had ever made. The speech had a wide circulation, and was produced in most of the leading papers in the slaveholding states as the view of a high-minded, far-seeing, and national statesman. That speech has often been referred to by his enemies, even after the Lecompton difficulty had occurred, as a speech embracing the best and clearest views of constitutional law and of sound statesmanship. In that Springfield speech of June 12, 1857, a speech which has been held up as a model one, as containing nothing but sound Democratic doctrine, Mr. Douglas, in explaining what had been decided by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, used the following clear and emphatic language. That the Supreme Court had decided

"2d. That the act of the 6th of March, 1820, commonly called the Missouri Compromise Act, was unconstitutional and void before it was repealed by the Nebraska Act, and consequently did not and could not have the legal effect of extinguishing a master's right to a slave in that territory.

"While the right continues in full force under the guarantee of the Constitution, and can not be divested or alienated by an act of Congress, it necessarily remains a barren and worthless right unless sustained, protected, and enforced by appropriate police regulations and local legislation presenting adequate remedies for its violation. These regulations and remedies must necessarily depend entirely upon the will and wishes of the people of the Territory, as they can only be prescribed by the local Legislature.

"Hence the great principle of popular sovereignty and self-government is sustained and firmly established by the authority of this decision."

In his Bloomington speech, July 16th, 1858, he thus repeated the declaration of the same doctrine :

"I tell you, my friends, it is impossible, under our institutions, to force slavery on an unwilling people. If this principle of popular sovereignty inserted in the Nebraska Bill be fairly carried out, by letting the people decide

the question for themselves by a fair vote, at a fair election, and with honest returns, slavery will never exist one day or one hour in any Territory against the unfriendly legislation of an unfriendly people. I care not how the Dred Scott decision may have settled the abstract question so far as the practical result is concerned; for, to use the language of an eminent southern senator on this very question:

"I do not care a fig which way the decision shall be, for it is of no particular consequence; slavery can not exist a day or an hour in any territory or state unless it has affirmative laws sustaining and supporting it, furnishing police regulations and remedies, and an omission to furnish them would be as fatal as a constitutional prohibition. Without affirmative legislation in its favor, slavery could not exist any longer than a new-born infant could survive under the heat of the sun on a barren rock without protection. It would wilt and die for the want of support.'

"Hence, if the people of a territory want slavery, they will encourage it by passing affirmatory laws, and the necessary police regulations, patrol laws, and slave code; if they do not want it they will withhold that legislation, and by withholding it slavery is as dead as if it was prohibited by a constitutional prohibition-(cheers)—especially if, in addition, their legislation is unfriendly, as it would be if they were opposed to it. They could pass such local laws and police regulations as would drive slavery out in one day, or one hour, if they were opposed to it, and therefore, so far as the question of slavery in the territories is concerned, so far as the principle of popular sovereignty is concerned, in its practical operation, it matters, not how the Dred Scott case may be decided with reference to the territories. My own opinion on that law point is well known. It is shown by my votes and speeches in Congress. But, be it as it may, the question was an abstract question, inviting no practical results, and whether slavery shall exist or shall not exist in any state or territory will depend upon whether the people are for it or against it, and whichever way they shall decide it in any territory or in any state will be entirely satisfactory to me. (Cheers.)"

In his speech at Springfield, July 18, 1858, he repeated substantially the same remarks upon this point-the impossibility of forcing or prohibiting slavery against the wishes of the people. Mr. Douglas and his friends also frequently quoted Mr. Buchanan's clear statement of the same doctrine, in his letter accepting the Cincinnati nomination, as follows:

"This legislation (Kansas-Nebraska Act) is founded upon principles as ancient as free government itself, and in accordance with them has simply declared that the people of a territory, like those of a state, shall decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits.”

On August 21 the first joint discussion between Lincoln and Douglas took place; this occurred at Ottawa, in La Salle county, a strong Republican district, then and now represented in Congress by Mr. Lovejoy. The crowd in attendance was a large one, and about equally divided in political sentiment-the enthusiasm of the democracy having brought

out more than a due proportion of that party to hear and see Douglas. His thrilling tones, his manly defiance towards the enemies of the party, assured his friends, if any assurance was wanting, that he was the same unconquered and unconquerable Democrat that for twenty-five years he had been proved to be. Douglas opened the discussion and spoke one hour; Lincoln followed, his time being limited to an hour and a half, yet he yielded thirteen minutes before the expiration of his time. The speeches delivered on Saturday afternoon were published in the Chicago Times, and Press and Tribune, on Sunday afternoon. They had a wide circulation. The effect of them was most damaging to Lincoln. It was, therefore, deemed necessary to concoct some plan to break off the Democracy from Douglas, by placing the latter in the position of a preacher of political heresy. The next joint meeting was to be at Freeport, on Friday, the 27th, and during the interval a meeting of the Danite and Republican leaders was held at Chicago to prepare some trap for Douglas.

The speeches of Mr. Douglas, Mr. Orr, and the paragraphs from Mr. Buchanan's inaugural, were taken by the Danite and Republican leaders as the basis of a question to be propounded to Mr. Douglas at Freeport. If he answered negatively, the answer was to be used by the allies as a repudiation of the principles of the Nebraska Bill, as in direct variance with the established doctrine of the party as declared by himself and by all others; and as more pro-slavery than even the people of South Carolina asked for. If he answered in the affirmative, then he was to be denounced as a preacher of a political heresy, according to the Republican interpretation of the Dred Scott decision. The questions were, therefore, prepared, and when the parties met at Freeport, on the 27th, Mr. Lincoln, who had the opening, drew from his pocket a paper containing four questions, all (so he said) that he had had time to prepare for the occasion. Those questions were as follows:

"1. If the people of Kansas shall, by means entirely unobjectionable in all other respects, adopt a state Constitution, and ask admission into the Union under it, before they have the requisite number of inhabitants, according to the English bill, to wit: ninety-three thousand, will you vote to admit them?

"2. Can the people of the United States territory, in any lawful way,

against the wishes of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a state Constitution?

"3. If the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide that states can not exclude slavery from their limits, are you in favor of acquiescing in adopting and following such decision as a rule of political action?

4. Are you in favor of acquiring additional territory in disregard of how such acquisition may affect the nation on the slavery question?

The second question was one involving the material point upon which the confederates proposed to make capital. The other questions really amounted to nothing, and were presented, with ostrich-like sagacity, under an impression that Douglas would not perceive the hidden purpose. In his speech he thus replied to the four questions:

"First he desires to know, If the people of Kansas shall form a Constitution by means entirely proper and unobjectionable, and ask admission into the Union as a state before they have the requisite population for a member of Congress, whether I will vote for that admission? Well, now, I regret exceedingly that he did not answer that interrogatory himself before he put it to me, in order that we might understand, and not be left to infer, on which side he is. Mr. Trumbull, during the last session of Congress, voted from the beginning to the end against the admission of Oregon, although a free state, because she had not the requisite population for a member of Congress. Mr. Trumbull would not consent, under any circumstances, to let a state, free or slave, come into the Union until it had the requisite population. As Mr. Trumbull is in the field fighting for Mr. Lincoln, I would like to have Mr. Lincoln answer his own question, and tell me whether he is fighting Trumbull on that issue or not. But I will answer his question. In reference to Kansas, it is my opinion that, as she has population enough to constitute a slave state, she has people enough for a free state. I will not make Kansas an exceptional case to the other states of the Union. I hold it to be a sound rule of universal application to require a territory to contain the requisite population for a member of Congress before it is admitted as a state into the Union. I made that proposition in the Senate in 1856, and I renewed it during the last session, in a bill providing that no territory of the United States should form a Constitution and apply for admission until it had the requisite population. On another occasion I proposed that neither Kansas, nor any other territory, should be admitted until it had the requisite population. Congress did not adopt any of my propositions containing this general rule, but did make an exception of Kansas. I will stand by that exception. Either Kansas must come in as a free state, with whatever population she may have, or the rule must be applied to all the other territories alike. I therefore answer at once, that it having been decided that Kansas has people enough for a slave state, I hold that she has enough for a free state. I hope Mr. Lincoln is satisfied with my answer; and now I would like to get his answer to his own interrogatory-whether or not he will vote to admit Kansas before she has the requisite population. I want to know whether he will vote to admit Oregon before that territory has the requisite population. Mr. Trumbull will not, and the same reason that commits Mr. Trumbull against the admission of Oregon commits him against Kansas, even if she should apply for admission as a free state. If there is any sincerity, any truth in the argument of Mr. Trumbull in the Senate against the admission of Oregon