this　new　audience；　to　give　briefly　some　of　the　reasons　for
  entertaining　that　opinion。　　Another　form　of　his　question　is；　〃Why
  can't　we　let　it　stand　as　our　fathers　placed　it？〃　That　is　the
  exact　difficulty　between　us。　　I　say　that　Judge　Douglas　and　his
  friends　have　changed　it　from　the　position　in　which　our　fathers
  originally　placed　it。　　I　say；　in　the　way　our　father's　originally
  left　the　slavery　question；　the　institution　was　in　the　course　of
  ultimate　extinction；　and　the　public　mind　rested　in　the　belief
  that　it　was　in　the　course　of　ultimate　extinction。　　I　say　when
  this　government　was　first　established　it　was　the　policy　of　its
  founders　to　prohibit　the　spread　of　slavery　into　the　new
  Territories　of　the　United　States；　where　it　had　not　existed。　　But
  Judge　Douglas　and　his　friends　have　broken　up　that　policy；　and
  placed　it　upon　a　new　basis；　by　which　it　is　to　become　national　and
  perpetual。　　All　I　have　asked　or　desired　anywhere　is　that　it
  should　be　placed　back　again　upon　the　basis　that　the　fathers　of
  our　government　originally　placed　it　upon。　　I　have　no　doubt　that
  it　would　become　extinct；　for　all　time　to　come；　if　we　but
  readopted　the　policy　of　the　fathers；　by　restricting　it　to　the
  limits　it　has　already　covered；　restricting　it　from　the　new
  Territories。
  I　do　not　wish　to　dwell　at　great　length　on　this　branch　of　the
  subject　at　this　time；　but　allow　me　to　repeat　one　thing　that　I
  have　stated　before。　　Brooksthe　man　who　assaulted　Senator　Sumner
  on　the　floor　of　the　Senate；　and　who　was　complimented　with
  dinners；　and　silver　pitchers；　and　gold…headed　canes；　and　a　good
  many　other　things　for　that　featin　one　of　his　speeches　declared
  that　when　this　government　was　originally　established；　nobody
  expected　that　the　institution　of　slavery　would　last　until　this
  day。　　That　was　but　the　opinion　of　one　man；　but　it　was　such　an
  opinion　as　we　can　never　get　from　Judge　Douglas　or　anybody　in
  favor　of　slavery；　in　the　North；　at　all。　　You　can　sometimes　get　it
  from　a　Southern　man。　　He　said　at　the　same　time　that　the　framers
  of　our　government　did　not　have　the　knowledge　that　experience　has
  taught　us；　that　experience　and　the　invention　of　the　cotton…gin
  have　taught　us　that　the　perpetuation　of　slavery　is　a　necessity。
  He　insisted；　therefore；　upon　its　being　changed　from　the　basis
  upon　which　the　fathers　of　the　government　left　it　to　the　basis　of
  its　perpetuation　and　nationalization。
  I　insist　that　this　is　the　difference　between　Judge　Douglas　and
  myself；that　Judge　Douglas　is　helping　that　change　along。　　I
  insist　upon　this　government　being　placed　where　our　fathers
  originally　placed　it。
  I　remember　Judge　Douglas　once　said　that　he　saw　the　evidences　on
  the　statute　books　of　Congress　of　a　policy　in　the　origin　of
  government　to　divide　slavery　and　freedom　by　a　geographical　line；
  that　he　saw　an　indisposition　to　maintain　that　policy；　and
  therefore　he　set　about　studying　up　a　way　to　settle　the
  institution　on　the　right　basis；the　basis　which　he　thought　it
  ought　to　have　been　placed　upon　at　first；　and　in　that　speech　he
  confesses　that　he　seeks　to　place　it；　not　upon　the　basis　that　the
  fathers　placed　it　upon；　but　upon　one　gotten　up　on　〃original
  principles。〃　　When　he　asks　me　why　we　cannot　get　along　with　it　in
  the　attitude　where　our　fathers　placed　it；　he　had　better　clear　up
  the　evidences　that　he　has　himself　changed　it　from　that　basis；
  that　he　has　himself　been　chiefly　instrumental　in　changing　the
  policy　of　the　fathers。　　Any　one　who　will　read　his　speech　of　the
  22d　of　last　March　will　see　that　he　there　makes　an　open
  confession；　showing　that　he　set　about　fixing　the　institution　upon
  an　altogether　different　set　of　principles。　　I　think　I　have　fully
  answered　him　when　he　asks　me　why　we　cannot　let　it　alone　upon　the
  basis　where　our　fathers　left　it；　by　showing　that　he　has　himself
  changed　the　whole　policy　of　the　government　in　that　regard。
  Now；　fellow…citizens；　in　regard　to　this　matter　about　a　contract
  that　was　made　between　Judge　Trumbull　and　myself；　and　all　that
  long　portion　of　Judge　Douglas's　speech　on　this　subject；I　wish
  simply　to　say　what　I　have　said　to　him　before；　that　he　cannot　know
  whether　it　is　true　or　not；　and　I　do　know　that　there　is　not　a　word
  of　truth　in　it。　　And　I　have　told　him　so　before。　　I　don't　want　any
  harsh　language　indulged　in；　but　I　do　not　know　how　to　deal　with
  this　persistent　insisting　on　a　story　that　I　know　to　be　utterly
  without　truth。　　It　used　to　be　a　fashion　amongst　men　that　when　a
  charge　was　made；　some　sort　of　proof　was　brought　forward　to
  establish　it；　and　if　no　proof　was　found　to　exist；　the　charge　was
  dropped。　　I　don't　know　how　to　meet　this　kind　of　an　argument。　　I
  don't　want　to　have　a　fight　with　Judge　Douglas；　and　I　have　no　way
  of　making　an　argument　up　into　the　consistency　of　a　corn…cob　and
  stopping　his　mouth　with　it。　　All　I　can　do　isgood…humoredlyto
  say　that；　from　the　beginning　to　the　end　of　all　that　story　about　a
  bargain　between　Judge　Trumbull　and　myself；　there　is　not　a　word　of
  truth　in　it。　　I　can　only　ask　him　to　show　some　sort　of　evidence　of
  the　truth　of　his　story。　　He　brings　forward　here　and　reads　from
  what　he　contends　is　a　speech　by　James　H。　　Matheny；　charging　such
  a　bargain　between　Trumbull　and　myself。　　My　own　opinion　is　that
  Matheny　did　do　some　such　immoral　thing　as　to　tell　a　story　that　he
  knew　nothing　about。　　I　believe　he　did。　　I　contradicted　it
  instantly；　and　it　has　been　contradicted　by　Judge　Trumbull；　while
  nobody　has　produced　any　proof；　because　there　is　none。　　Now；
  whether　the　speech　which　the　Judge　brings　forward　here　is　really
  the　one　Matheny　made；　I　do　not　know；　and　I　hope　the　Judge　will
  pardon　me　for　doubting　the　genuineness　of　this　document；　since
  his　production　of　those　Springfield　resolutions　at　Ottawa。　　I　do
  not　wish　to　dwell　at　any　great　length　upon　this　matter。　　I　can
  say　nothing　when　a　long　story　like　this　is　told；　except　it　is　not
  true；　and　demand　that　he　who　insists　upon　it　shall　produce　some
  proof。　　That　is　all　any　man　can　do；　and　I　leave　it　in　that　way；
  for　I　know　of　no　other　way　of　dealing　with　it。
  ＇In　an　argument　on　the　lines　of：　〃Yes；　you　did。　　No；　I　did
  not。〃　　　It　bears　on　the　former　to　prove　his　point；　not　on　the
  negative　to　〃prove〃　that　he　did　noteven　if　he　easily　can　do
  so。＇
  The　Judge　has　gone　over　a　long　account　of　the　old　Whig　and
  Democratic　parties；　and　it　connects　itself　with　this　charge
  against　Trumbull　and　myself。　　He　says　that　they　agreed　upon　a
  compromise　in　regard　to　the　slavery　question　in　1850；　that　in　a
  National　Democratic　Convention　resolutions　were　passed　to　abide
  by　that　compromise　as　a　finality　upon　the　slavery　question。　　He
  also　says　that　the　Whig　party　in　National　Convention　agreed　to
  abide　by　and　regard　as　a　finality　the　Compromise　of　1850。　　I
  understand　the　Judge　to　be　altogether　right　about　that；　I
  understand　that　part　of　the　history　of　the　country　as　stated　by
  him　to　be　correct　I　recollect　that　I；　as　a　member　of　that　party；
  acquiesced　in　that　compromise。　　I　recollect　in　the　Presidential
  election　which　followed；　when　we　had　General　Scott　up　for　the
  presidency；　Judge　Douglas　was　around　berating　us　Whigs　as
  Abolitionists；　precisely　as　he　does　to…day；not　a　bit　of
  difference。　　I　have　often　heard　him。　　We　could　do　nothing　when
  the　old　Whig　party　was　alive　that　was　not　Abolitionism；　but　it
  has　got　an　extremely　good　name　since　it　has　passed　away。
  ＇It　almost　a　natural　law　that；　when　deadno　matter　how　bad　we
  werewe　　are　automatically　beatified。＇
  When　that　Compromise　was　made　it　did　not　repeal　the　old　Missouri
  Compromise。　　It　left　a　region　of　United　States　territory　half　as
  large　as　the　present　territory　of　the　United　States；　north　of　the
  line　of　36　degrees　30　minutes；　in　which　slavery　was　prohibited　by
  Act　of　Congress。　　This　Compromise　did　not　repeal　that　one。　　It
  did　not　affect　or　propose　to　repeal　it。　　But　at　last　it　became
  Judge　Douglas's　duty；　as　he　thought　（and　I　find　no　fault　with
  him）；　as　Chairman　of　the　Committee　on　Territories；　to　bring　in　a
  bill　for　the　organization　of　a　territorial　government；first　of
  one；　then　of　two　Territories　north　of　that　line。　　When　he　did　so；
  it　ended　in　his　inserting　a　provision　substantially　repealing　the
  Missouri　Compromise。　　That　was　because　the　Compromise　of　1850　had
  not　repealed　it。　　And　now　I　ask　why　he　could　not　have　let　that
  Compromise　alone？　　We　were　quiet　from　the　agitation　of　the
  slavery　question。　　We　were　making　no　fuss　about　it。　　All　had
  acquiesced　in　the　Compromise　measures　of　1850。　　We　never　had　been
  seriously　disturbed　by　any　Abolition　agitation　before　that
  period。　　When　he　came　to　form　governments　for　the　Territories
  north　of　the　line　of　36　degrees　30　minutes；　why　could　he　not　have
  let　that　matter　stand　as　it　was　standing？　　Was　it　necessary　to
  the　organization　of　a　Territory？　　Not　at　all。　　Iowa　lay　north　of
  the　line；　and　had　been　organized　as　a　Territory　and　come　into　the
  Union　as　a　State　without　disturbing　that　Compromise。　　There　was
  no　sort　of　necessity　for　destr