Year: 1860

as such, never did exist in that State and
the ground upon which these ndcntures
were sustained was either that they were
entered into fairly, as one freeman would
enter into contract with another, or else
that they had been confirmed by the adop
ton of the Constitution.


In rising, sir, my only intention was to
repel these imputations upon the Republican
party of Illinois, and to correct the statement
of my colleague in regard to the existence of
slavery in that State slavery as such never
was established in Illinois, either before or
after the Constitution was adopted, unless it
was that slavery which one man by force
might establish over another. The very first
time the question came before the courts the
decision was wade as have already stated.


At this point Mr. Douglas made reply
occupying two columns in the Globe after
which Mr.. Trumbull rejoined:


Mr. President, it only needs statemento
facts and bringing my colleague back to the





all the points which took lie has under
taken to show tha! slavery existed in Illinois;
and how does he do it He refers to the
census, which shows that somebody cl; lined
slaves in Illinois. Does that make it a slave
State | believe that now slaves are claimed
in all our free States. There is a Lennon
pnc 7, CE,L e
where the right is claimed to hold slaves in
that State. He says that the Territorial
Legislature of Illinois adopted slave code.
That is true, and the State adopted a slave
code, ifyou please. Many of the first set
tiers of Illinois wanted slavery, and nothing
kept slavery out and made Illinois what she
persons claimed to hold slaves in Illinois does
not prove that any were there. The very
first time the question was brought to the
notice of the courts, it was decided that slave
ry could not exist in Illinois.


My colleague speaks of my having remark
ed that | stated this to his teeth. do, sir: !:





II is very seldom that we in Illinois have ant
opportunity to say anything to his face. lie
scarcely ever remains to hear the example
given to night of leaving tht moment he is
through speaking, without waiting to hear
reply, is not uncommon with him. I know
he has traversed the State of Illinois, and
made declarations like those which he has
made here to-day, | availed myself Of the
privilege of saying what did, to-day, to his
face, because had him here face to face for
once. am well aware Of the way III which
he discusses questions. he makes state
mcnts, when there is nobody present to con-
tradict them, which the facts Of history will
not sustain. He has gone on he.e to day,
and asked, in so many wortlS, why the Re
publican party, when they get power, viii
not give to the negroes that equality which
they claim for them, thereby assuming that
we Republicans claim eqGality for the negro.
We have not done any such thing and now
| will answer that point, and answer it so
that think he will never repeat it again, at
least where he can be replied to. He has
asked here to-day, whether we claim that
negroes are created by the Almighty with
| the same natural rights. as the white man ?
| answer him, that do claim it. Well then,
said he does not the Declaration of Inde-
pendence declare that they are endowed with
certain inalienable rights, among which are
| life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
and if you deny any of these rights, do you
not violate the law ofGod ? That is the way
my colleague putthe question. Now let me
answer him. | will apply his own mode OF
reasoning to white men, and see if his con-
| struction does not violate the laws of God
equally with mine.


| He claims the Declaration of Independence
applies to white men. If it applies to white
men, then white men are endowed by their
Creator with certain nalienable rights, anon
are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
What right has he to take the life or liberty
of white man ? Is heopposed to the crimi-
nal code of the State of Illinois, which sub
.iects the horse thief to Imprisonment in the
Penitentiary, and takes away his inalienable
right to liberty He says that this inaliena-
BILE right is secured to him, being white
man, by the great Creator and yet he is for
taking it away, presume. If the Declara,
| ton of Independence applies to white men,
ask him, by what authority it i; that he
violates the law Of God, and sends the horse
thief to the penitentiary, or the murderer to
the gallows? All. sir, he does it because
the exigencies ofsociety require it. And il
he can press the argument upon me that
have no right to deny an inalenable right
to negro, then say he has no right to deny
an inalienable right to white man, and he
must abolish the criminal code, and let mur
derers and ROBBERS, thieves and perurers, &C
unwhipped ofjustice through the land. This
shows the utter fallacy of his attempt tc
make Republicans the advocates of negro
equality, because they say that all men al,
created equal, and endowed with certain in
alicnable rights.


My colleague made another statement
which must not suffer to pass. He saiC
that he doubted whether any Sttte woult
ever arrogate to itself the right TO divest prop
erty in slaves. That is exactly the point t.
which expected my colleague would come
1t is contended, on the other side Of th