Papers Of Abraham Lincoln

Report of Speech at Beardstown, Illinois, 12 August 18581

LINCOLN’S BEARDSTOWN SPEECH.
The “Conspiracy” Charge Renewed and Clinched.

In his speech at Beardstown, Mr. Lincoln renewed and clinched his charge of conspiracy against Mr. Douglas.2 He drove it home with such power that with all his flounderings, Mr. Douglas cannot escape from it. The following is an extract from his speech:

I made a speech in June last, (said Mr. Lincoln,) in which I pointed out, briefly and consecutively, a series of public measures leading directly to the nationalization of slavery—the spreading of that inititution over all the Territories and all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South. I enumerated the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, which every candid man must ancknowledge conferred upon emigrants to Kansas and Nebraska the right to carry slaves there and hold them in bondage, whereas, formerly they had no such right. I alluded to the events which followed that repeal—events in which Judge Douglas’ name figures quite prominently. I referred to the Dred Scott decision, and the extraordinary means taken to prepare the public mind for that decision—3the efforts put forth by President Pierce to make the people believe they had indorsed, in the election of James Buchanan, the doctrine that slavery may exist in the free Territories of the Union—4the earnest exhortation put forth by President Buchanan to the people to stick to that decision whatever it might be, (laughter,) the close fitting niche in the Nebraska bill wherein the right of the people to govern themselves is made “subject to the Constitution of the United States”—the extraordinary haste displayed by Mr. Douglas to give this decision an endorsement at the Capital of Illinois.5 I alluded to other occurring circumstances which I need not repeat now, and I said that though I could not open the bosoms of men and find out their secret motives, yet, when I found the framework for a barn or a bridge, or any other structure, built by a number of carpenters—Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James—and so built that each tenon had its proper mortice, and the whole forming a symmetrical piece of workmanship, I should say that these carpenters all worked on an intelligent plan, and understood each other from the beginning. This embraced the main argument in my speech before the Republican State convention in June. Judge Douglas received a copy of my speech some two weeks before h[i]s return to Illinois. He had ample time to examine and reply to it if he chose to do so. He did examine it, and he did reply to it, but he wholly overlooked the body of my argument, and said nothing about the “conspiracy charge,” as he terms it. He made up his speech of complaints against our tendencies to negro equality and amalgamation.6 (Laughter.) Well, seeing that Douglas had had the process served on him, that he had taken notice of such service, that he had come into court and pleaded to a part of the complaint, but had ignored the main issue, I took a default on him. I held that he had no plea to make to the general charge. So, when I was called on to reply to him twenty-four hours afterwards, I renewed the charge as explicitly as I could. My speech was reported and published on the following morning, and of course Judge Douglas saw it.7 He went from Chicago to Bloomington, and there made another and longer speech, and yet took no notice of the “conspiracy charge.” He then went to Springfield and made another elaborate argument, but was not prevailed upon to know anything about the outstanding indictment. I made another speech in Springfield—this time taking it for granted that Judge Douglas was satisfied to take his chances in the campaign with the imputation of the conspiracy hanging over him.8 It was not until he went into a small town (Clinton) in DeWitt county, where he delivered his fourth or fifth regular speech, that he found it convenient to notice this matter at all.9 At that place (I was standing in the crowd when he made his speech,) he bethought himself that he was charged with something; (laughter;) and his reply was that “his self respect alone prevented his calling it a falsehood.” Well, my friends, perhaps he so far lost his self-respect in Beardstown as to actually call it a falsehood! (Great laughter—Douglas had called it “an infamous lie.”) But now I have this reply to make: That while the Nebraska bill was pending, Judge Douglas helped to vote down a clause giving the people of the Territories the right to exclude slavery if they chose; that neither while the bill was pending, nor at any other time, would he give his opinion whether the people had the right to exclude slavery—though respectfully asked; that he made a report, which I hold in my hand, from the Committee on Territories, in which he said the rights of the people of the Territories in this regard are “held in abeyance,” and can not be immediately exercised, (Mr. Lincoln here read the passage referred to, from an official document in the Senate;)10 that the Dred Scott decision expressly denies any such right, but declares that neither Congress nor the Territorial Legislature can keep slavery out of Kansas; and that Judge Douglas indorses that decision. All these “charges” are new; that is, I did not make them in my original speech—they are additional and cumulative testimony. I bring them forward now, and dare Judge Douglas to deny one of them. Let him do it, and I will prove it by such testimony as will confound him forever. (Loud applause.) I say to you, gentlemen, that it would be more to the purpose for Judge Douglas to say that he did not repeal the Missouri Compromise; that he did not make slavery possible where it was impossible before; that he did not leave a niche in the Nebraska bill for the Dred Scott decision to rest in; that he did not vote down a clause giving the people the right to exclude slavery if they wanted to; that he did not refuse to give his individual opinion whether a Territorial Legislature could exclude slavery; that he did not make a report to the Senate in which he said that the rights of the people in this regard were “held in abeyance” and could not be immediately exercised; that he did not make a hasty indorsement of the Dred Scott decision over at Springfield; that he does not now indorse that decision; that that decision does not take away from the Territorial Legislature the power to exclude slavery, and that he did not in the original Nebraska bill so couple the words State and Territory together, that what the Supreme Court has done in forcing open all the Territories for slavery, it may yet do in forcing open all the States—I say it would be vastly more to the point for Judge Douglas to to say he did not do some of these things, did not forge some of these links of overwhelming testimony, than to go vociferating about the country that possibly he may hint that somebody is a liar! (Deafening applause.) I repeat and renew, and shall continue to repeat and renew this “charge” until he denies the evidence, and then I shall so fasten it upon him that it will cling to him as long as he lives.11

It would be impossible for me to give your readers an idea of the energy and vehemence with which Lincoln uttered these words. It was the most terrible indictment I ever heard. Its effect was electrical. The vast audience gave three tremendous cheers when he pronounced the concluding sentence.

Springfield.

1 This extract of Abraham Lincoln’s speech appeared in the August 19, 1858, edition of the Daily Illinois State Journal.
Daily Illinois State Journal (Springfield), 19 August 1858, 2:2.

2Lincoln believed that the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, establishing popular sovereignty as a means of deciding slave status for southwestern territories, was part of a larger conspiracy to make slavery perpetual and national. At the 1858 Illinois Republican Convention, Lincoln delivered an address—widely known as his “House Divided” speech—in which he charged that Douglas was part of a plot or conspiracy to nationalize slavery. Lincoln argued that the plot began with Douglas’ Kansas-Nebraska bill, which President Franklin Pierce supported, then was advanced by both the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Dred Scott case—handed down by Roger B. Taney—and by President James Buchanan’s call to support the court’s decision. Lincoln warned his audience that, if Douglas were not defeated and the slave power not overthrown, another Supreme Court ruling could build upon the Dred Scott decision and proclaim that the U.S. Constitution prohibited states from excluding slavery within their own borders.
Delegates tot he 1858 Illinois Republican Convention nominated Lincoln as the Republican candidate from Illinois for the U.S. Senate. He ran against, and lost to, Democrat Stephen A. Douglas, the incumbent. See 1858 Federal Election.
Michael Burlingame, Abraham Lincoln: A Life (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008), 1:458-61; Report of Speech at Springfield, Illinois; Report of Speech at Springfield, Illinois; Fragment of A House Divided Speech at Springfield, Illinois; Report of Speech at Springfield, Illinois; David Herbert Donald, Lincoln (New York: Touchstone, 1995), 206-9.

3In his June 16 speech, Lincoln asserted regarding the Scott decision that while the, “Constitution of the United States neither permits Congress nor a Territorial Legislature to exclude Slavery from any United States Territory, they all omit to declare whether or not the same Constitution permits a State, or the people of a State, to exclude it.” He went on to argue that this omission left room for another Supreme Court decision declaring that the U.S. Constitution does not permit a state to exclude slavery from its limits. Douglas responded in his July 9, 1858, speech in Chicago that he took issue with any criticism of a Supreme Court ruling, and opined that once a Supreme Court decision was issued, “all other opinions must yield to the majesty of that authoritative adjudication.”
Robert W. Johannsen, ed., The Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965), 28, 31; Report of Speech at Springfield, Illinois; Report of Speech at Springfield, Illinois; Fragment of A House Divided Speech at Springfield, Illinois; Report of Speech at Springfield, Illinois

4In Kansas’ first election of a territorial legislature in 1855, a pro-slavery government was elected in a election characterized by widespread fraud, and a rival anti-slavery legislature was subsequently formed in response. In January 1856 President Franklin Pierce made a statement that declared the pro-slavery legislature legitimate despite the election irregularities, and characterized opposition to the territorial government as treason. See Bleeding Kansas.

William A. Blair, With Malice toward Some: Treason and Loyalty in the Civil War Era (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2014), 24; David M. Potter and Don E. Fehrenbacher, The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861 (New York: Harper & Row, 1976), 199-224, 297-327

5Lincoln is referencing a speech given by Douglas on June 12, 1857 at Springfield. On June 26, 1857 Lincoln delivered a speech in the hall of the Illinois House of Representatives in Springfield in response to one given by Douglas. Lincoln summarized Douglas’ speech as having been “on the several subjects of Kansas, the Dred Scott decision, and Utah” and responded on these topics. Lyman Trumbull also spoke in the hall of the Illinois House of Representatives three days after Lincoln “on the political questions which now divide and distinguish the two great parties of the day.” Lincoln’s and Trumbull’s speeches were published in the Illinois State Journal and reprinted in pamphlet form.
The Lincoln Log: A Daily Chronology of the Life of Abraham Lincoln, 12 June 1857, http://www.thelincolnlog.org/Results.aspx?type=CalendarDay&day=1857-06-12; Daily Illinois State Journal (Springfield), 29 June 1857, 2:2-4; 1 July 1857, 1:1, 2:2-5; 2 July 1857, 2:2-5; Speech of the Hon. Abram Lincoln, in Reply to Judge Douglas. Delivered in Representatives’ Hall, Springfield, Illinois, June 26th, 1857 (n.p.: n.p., [1857?]); Speech of Hon. Lyman Trumbull, on the Politics of the Day, Delivered in Representatives’ Hall, Springfield, Ill., June 29th, 1857 (n.p.: n.p., [1857?]); Robert W. Johannsen, Stephen A. Douglas (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973), 567-75.

6Amalgamation involved the action of combining distinct elements, races, or associations into one uniform whole. An amalgamationist was believed to support the merging—or amalgamation—of the black and white races through, in this context, interracial marriage or sexual activity.
In his July 9 speech in Chicago, Douglas accused Lincoln in his House-Divided Speech of fomenting a sectional war to achieve “uniformity in local and domestic affairs” that, in Douglas’s opinion, “would be destructive...of personal liberty and personal freedom.” Douglas also castigated Lincoln for his opposition to the Dred Scott decision and endorsement of political equality for blacks. “I am free to say to you, my fellow citizens, that in my opinion this Government of ours is founded on the white basis. It was made by the white man, for the benefit of the white man, to be administered by white men... I am opposed to negro equality.” This ran in opposition to Lincoln, according to Douglas, who wanted to afford “the negro of the privileges, immunities and rights of citizenship.” Douglas then detailed the rights that only white men should hold, including the right to vote, hold office, or serve on a jury. Douglas also opposed Lincoln’s purported desire to intermingle the white and black races. “I repeat, that this nation is a nation of white people, a people composed of European descendants, a people that have established this government for themselves and their posterity, and I am in favor of not only preserving the purity of their blood, but the purity of the government from all mixed races or amalgamations.”

Michael Burlingame, Abraham Lincoln: A Life, 1:468; Chicago Daily Press and Tribune (IL), 10 July 1858, 1:4, 5; Webb Garrison and Cheryl Garrison, The Encyclopedia of Civil War Usage (Nashville, TN: Cumberland House, 2001), 9; James A. H. Murray, ed., A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1888), 1:263.

7Lincoln’s speech, replying to Douglas’s July 9 speech, took place in Chicago on the evening of July 10. He again discussed the subjects of popular sovereignty, the Lecompton Constitution, and the Dred Scott case. Regarding his accusation of Douglas wanting to nationalize slavery, Lincoln noted, “I think that the Republican party is made up of those who, as far as they can peaceably, will oppose the extension of slavery, and who will hope for its ultimate extinction.” He then continued, “Let us stand firmly by each other. If we do not do so we are turning in the contrary direction, that our friend Judge Douglas proposes—not intentionally—as working in the traces tend to make this one universal slave nation.”
Report of Speech at Chicago, Illinois; Report of Speech at Chicago, Illinois; Report of Speech at Chicago, Illinois; Chicago Daily Press and Tribune (IL), 12 July 1858, 1:2-5.

8In the Springfield speech, Lincoln used the term conspiracy outright, concluding the talk by saying, “I charge him (Douglas) with having been a party to that conspiracy and to that deception for the sole purpose of nationalizing slavery.”
Speech at Springfield, Illinois; Speech at Springfield, Illinois; Speech at Springfield, Illinois.

9Douglas spoke at Clinton on July 27, and Lincoln followed up with a speech that evening. According to a local paper, Douglas “furiously denied” Lincoln’s conspiracy charge, leading Lincoln to respond, “that Douglas either was a conspirator or the dupe of conspirators.”
Chicago Daily Press and Tribune (IL), 4 August 1858, 2:3; The Central Transcript (Clinton, IL), 30 July 1858, 2:6, 3:1; The Lincoln Log: A Daily Chronology of the Life of Abraham Lincoln, 27 July 1858, https://www.thelincolnlog.org/Results.aspx?type=CalendarDay&day=1858-07-27.

10Lincoln is likely referring to Douglas’s Senate report submitted on March 12, 1856, and thus would have read the following passage: “that the sovereignty of a Territory remains in abeyance, suspended in the United States, in a trust for the people, until they shall be admitted into the Union as a State. In the mean time they are entitled to enjoy and exercise all the privileges and rights of self-government, in subordination to the Constitution of the United States, and in obedience to their organic law passed by Congress in pursuance of that instrument.”
On July 2, 1856, Senator Lyman Trumbull proposed amending the Kansas-Nebraska Act by inserting the right of a territory to exclude slavery by adding, “that until the territorial legislature acts upon the subject, the owner of a slave in one of the States has no right or authority to take such slave into the Territory of Kansas and there hold him as a slave; but every slave taken to the Territory of Kansas by his owner, for purposes of settlement, is hereby declared to be free, unless there is some valid act of a duly constituted legislative assembly of said Territory, under and by virtue of which he may be held as a slave.” The change was voted down with Douglas among the nays. An additional amendment was suggested by Trumbull to specify language of slavery exclusion but it was also voted down. Douglas again voted nay.
U.S. Senate Journal. 1856. 34th Cong., 1st sess., Rep. com., no. 34, 39; U.S. Senate Journal. 1856. 34th Cong., 1st sess., 408-9.

11In 1865, Chicago Press and Tribune reporter Horace White claimed that Lincoln’s comments regarding the Declaration of Independence in his August 17 speech at Lewistown were actually a part of Lincoln’s Beardstown speech. However, none of the contemporary reports of the Beardstown speech reference Lincoln bringing up the topic of the Declaration of Independence.
William H. Herndon and Jesse W. Weik, Herndon’s Lincoln, ed. by Douglas L. Wilson and Rodney O. Davis (Urbana and Chicago: Knox College Lincoln Studies Center and the University of Illinois Press, 2006), 254; Roy P. Basler, ed., The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1953), 2:544, 547.