I trust my motives will be a sufficient apology for thus addressing a stranger.

I had the pleasure of hearing your discussion at Ottawa with Judge Douglas, and in common with every Republican I have heard express himself, think you in most respects proved yourself his superior–2

But allow me to say that, until you shall explicitly answer his questions—towit: “for or against an receiving any more slave states”—“Abolishing slavery in the district of Columbia” “Fugitive slave law &c[etc.] I think before a popular assembly, he will from this source derive considerable advantage.3

Our state reaching over so many degrees of latitude, & the opposition embracing about about an equal number of degrees of Anti Slavery, probably creates some difficulty in perfectly satisfying all your friends—but allow me to say that I think most any answer is better than none.

My own sentiments are “no more slave states”, but this position seems not exactly in accordance with some utterances of M^r Trumbull & the Chicago Press4

To take this position—“no more slave states” or to say that each case is to be judged as it arises, seems to leave Mr D a little patch of “Popular sovereignty”, while the Position of M^r Trumbull leaves him not a shred.

Should expediency—logical conclusions—& your own judgement & conscience constrain you to take this^Mr Trumbulls^ position, I do not think it will cost you a single vote in the north. Allow me to give, however, as my opinion that the Republican party hereafter & especially if successful will not finally endorse that position– But I write more especially to call

---

your attention to a fact in the Political history of the country– It was I think in 1850 when the Senate of the U.S. were considering the bill for abolishing the Slave trade in the Dist[District] of Columbia, M^r Seward of N.Y. offered a substitute for the Bill Abolishing Slavery itself— the question first to be submitted to the legal voters of the district— if not approved to be of no effect, but if approved by a majority vote, then by this Bill– Blank Dollars was appropriated to make a just compensation to the owners & perhaps to defray other expenses–

Thus while the compromise measures of 1850 were under consideration—the very measures which M^r D says introduced Popular Sovereignty— M^r Seward introduced a genuine Popular Sovereignty measure, wherein it was possible that slavery might be the loser, & where was M^r D on the vote?– Not having the documents at hand, I cannot say for certain that he voted at all, but I am quite sure he did, and against the bill, as did ^all^ the whole slave holders & all or nearly all their northern allies– I think M^r S. Mr Chase & M^r Sumner— possibly one or two others was ^were^ all the votes, this Popular sovereignty, wherein freedom might gain, that it received, while Bogus Popular sovereignty, wherein slavery was given some chance, indeed almost forced into free territory, received M^r D,s support.5

I think I found this in a pamphlet published in Chicago ^in^ 1856 containing the Nebrasca-Kansas bill— Speeches of Douglas— seward— Chase—Missouri compromise— Texas compromise— &c–6 The Congressional Globe I suppose will show it all.

All this may be familiar to you, but

---

lest it might not, & thinking that, perhaps it might be important in connection with M^r D’s question concerning Abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia, I have taken the liberty, (& hope I have not unpardonably intruded,) to send you an intimation of the same.

Allow me one other intimation —

The Position of the Douglas press on the result of the Missouri Election so proves their sympathies with Slavery as to be a rather tender subject with their rank & file–7

Hoping that the Republican cause in Illinois may triumph & you be its worthy representative in the senate I subscribe myself