The Proof is Here.

3

Thursday, October 14, 1858.

We have stated that Lincoln was one thing one time, and another thing another time, and to prove the truthfulness of our statement, we will quote from the Congregational Herald, edited by the Reverands Wm. Patton, S. C. Bartlett and I. E. Roy, at Chicago. These editors have no particular good feeling for Douglas, and at one time, were in favor of Lincoln, but hear them now. They say:

"In the present case, it could scarcely be expected that we should feel any sympathy with Senator Douglas, in view of his malignant attacks on the Northern minister, his championship of the interests of slavery, and his most obnoxious measures against freedom. – On the other hand we could hardly avoid a deep sympathy with the Republican party as his antagonists, provided a clean issue was made with him, and the battle was fought in defence of principle. This we at first hoped would be the case, and our hopes were strengthened by Mr. Lincoln's first speech, when he opened the campaign in this city in reply to Mr. Douglas. We thought a champion had been found who would stand by the Declaration of Independence and fight for human rights, for man as man irrespective of country, race, creed, or other accidental circumstances.

"But we are disappointed. The man for the hour does not seem to have been found in this great State. Our standard bearer has faltered thus soon, while the conflict has only begun. Mr. Lincoln's speech at Freeport shook our confidence in him as a true exponent of Republicanism in any genuine sense. There Mr. Douglas, following up the Ottawa debate, drove him from the ground of no more slave states, in any event, and induced him to swaver generally in his adhesion to thorough, anti-Slavery doctrines and measures. But his recent speeches at Charleston have nearly destroyed our faith in him as a fit man to represent this Empire State of the West in the national Senate. It requires something more in a Senator at this day of crisis, than a vague sympathy with freedom. He must adopt its radical principles and stand by them in victory or in defeat. Wit, sharp repartee, readiness of speech, good humor, effective stump oratory amount to something, but they cannot compensate for moral cowardice, or ignorance of the first truths of liberty.

"Mr. Lincoln deliberately, and with repetition, declared himself to be opposed to placing colored men on a political equality with white men. He made color and race the ground of political proscription. He forsook principle; and planted himself on low prejudice.

"Let the anti-slavery men in Illinois read the above and answer whether these are their sentiments. Had Mr. Lincoln pronounced against ignorance and immorality in citizens, and proposed to restrict the right of suffrage to all who could read and write and were possessed of a reputable character, whether white or black, American, European, Asiatic or African, we would have assented, because the idea is impartial, and based on a broad principle. But when he proscribes and entire class of the population, irrespective of intelligence or character, merely because of color and race, we hesitate not to affirm that he has fallen from a position which we can respect, and has planted himself on the Douglas platform. He does not represent us, nor thousands of other liberty loving citizens of Illinois. We have no enthusiasm for his success, although we have enthusiasm for the defeat of his opponent, and the great scheme which is pending on his triumph. Freedom can wait for a better leader. In the attempt to conciliate the pro slavery prejudices of men in the central and southern portions of the State, Mr. Lincoln is fast losing the sympathy of his supporters in the northern part. We have kept silence while silence was possible, but now speak out, that politicians may know that Christian men are not in the market, to be sold to the highest bidder, and that we will not follow the same name of Republicans without the reality. Our battle with Mr. Douglas, is one of principle, in behalf of universal human rights. We shall train in no organization that is mean enough to call itself, or be called by its chosen leader, ‘The White Man's Party.’"

Their battle with Douglas is in favor of negro equality, such as Lincoln started out with at Chicago; but at Freeport, the Judge, following up his Ottawa debate, made long Abe come down, and drove him from the ground. The old fellow is a moral coward, according to the editors of the Herald, and this is disgraceful above all things. But comment is unnecessary from us; the article speaks for itself.