drawing their allegiance from the British crown, and dissolving their connection with the mothercountry.' Why, that object having been effected some eighty years ago, the Declaration is of no - mere rubbish old wadding, left to rot on the battle-field after the victory is

practical use now

won.

"I understand you are preparing to celebrate the Fourth,' to-morrow week. What for? The doings of that day had no reference to the present; and quite half of you are not even descendants of those who were referred to at that day. But I suppose you will celebrate, and will even go so far as to read the Declaration. Suppose, after you read it once in the old-fashioned way, you read it once more with Judge Douglas's version. It will then run thus: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all British subjects who were on this continent eighty-one years ago, were created equal to all British subjects born and then residing in Great Britain !'

... The very Dred Scott case affords a strong test as to which party most favours amalgamation, the Republicans or the dear Unionsaving Democracy. Dred Scott, his wife and two daughters, were all involved in the suit. We desired the court to have held that they were

citizens, so far at least as to entitle them to a hearing as to whether they were free or not; and then also, that they were in fact and in law really free. Could we have had our way, the chances of these black girls ever mixing their blood with that of white people would have been diminished at least to the extent that it could not have been without their consent. But Judge Douglas is delighted to have them decided to be slaves, and not human enough to have a hearing, even if they were free, and thus left subject to the forced concubinage of their masters, and liable to become the mothers of mulattoes in spite of themselves, the very state of the case that produces nine-tenths of all the mulattoes, all the mixing of the blood of the nation.

"... Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and at the same time favourable to, or at least not against our interest to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be. The children of Israel, to such numbers as to include four hundred thousand fighting men, went out of Egyptian bondage in a body.

ઠંડ . . . The plainest print cannot be read through a gold eagle; and it will be ever hard to find many men who will send a slave to Li

beria and pay his passage, while they can send him to a new country - Kansas, for instance and sell him for fifteen hundred dollars and the rise."

THE "DIVIDED HOUSE" SPEECH DELIVERED AT SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, ON HIS NOMINATION TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.1

June 17, 1858.

If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated

1 This speech is the most important ever made by Mr. Lincoln. It was printed and circulated with the report of the Lincoln and Douglas debate, and it brought its author prominently before the people of the whole country. No careful reader of this speech will fail to discover that it cannot be condensed, that no paragraph in it can be omitted without weakening its logic, injuring its style, and doing injustice to its author. It has an interesting history which it does not fall within the scope of this vol. ume to give. It should always be presented in its entirety, to maintain its own position as a model for political speakers, a specimen of English composition, and, whether judged by its intrinsic qualities or its influence upon the fortunes of the Republic, one of the greatest of all politi cal documents since the Declaration of Independence.

with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved, - I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South.

Have we no tendency to the latter condition? Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination piece of machinery, so to speak-compounded of the Nebraska doctrine and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; but also let him study the history of its

construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design and concert of action among its chief architects from the beginning..

The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the States by State constitutions, and from most of the national territory by congressional prohibition. Four days later commenced the struggle which ended in repealing that congressional prohibition. This opened all the national territory to slavery, and was the first point gained.

But so far, Congress only had acted; and an indorsement by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable to save the point already gained and give chance for more.

This necessity had not been overlooked, but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of Squatter Sovereignty, otherwise called sacred right of self-government, which latter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it, as to amount to just this: That if any one man choose to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object. That argument was incorporated into the Nebraska Bill itself, in the language which follows: "It