Abstract image of a woman sitting on books and studying on a laptop

Multiple Time Series Models 1st Edition Patrick T Brandt John T Williams

A
axulrsbt104

Multiple Time Series Models 1st Edition Patrick T Brandt John T Williams Multiple Time Series Models 1st Edition Patrick T Brandt John T Williams Multiple Time Series Models 1st Edition Patrick T Brandt John T Williams

Education
1 of 47
Download to read offline
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Multiple Time Series Models 1st Edition Patrick T Brandt John T Williams download https://ebookbell.com/product/multiple-time-series-models-1st- edition-patrick-t-brandt-john-t-williams-1901590 Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com
Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be interested in. You can click the link to download. Multiple Time Series Modeling Using The Sas Varmax Procedure Anders Milhj https://ebookbell.com/product/multiple-time-series-modeling-using-the- sas-varmax-procedure-anders-milhj-7037532 Multiple Time Series Modeling Using The Sas Varmax Procedure Anders Milhoj https://ebookbell.com/product/multiple-time-series-modeling-using-the- sas-varmax-procedure-anders-milhoj-7026754 New Introduction To Multiple Time Series Analysis 3rd Edition Helmut Ltkepohl https://ebookbell.com/product/new-introduction-to-multiple-time- series-analysis-3rd-edition-helmut-ltkepohl-47165998 Characterizing Interdependencies Of Multiple Time Series Theory And Applications 1st Edition Yuzo Hosoya https://ebookbell.com/product/characterizing-interdependencies-of- multiple-time-series-theory-and-applications-1st-edition-yuzo- hosoya-6793324
New Introduction To Multiple Time Series Analysis Helmut Ltkepohl https://ebookbell.com/product/new-introduction-to-multiple-time- series-analysis-helmut-ltkepohl-1068716 New Introduction To Multiple Time Series Analysis Helmut Ltkepohl https://ebookbell.com/product/new-introduction-to-multiple-time- series-analysis-helmut-ltkepohl-11104534 New Introduction To Multiple Time Series Analysis Helmut Ltkepohl https://ebookbell.com/product/new-introduction-to-multiple-time- series-analysis-helmut-ltkepohl-59042124 Multipletimescale Dynamical Systems 1st Edition Amadeu Delshams https://ebookbell.com/product/multipletimescale-dynamical-systems-1st- edition-amadeu-delshams-4210092 Multiple Time Scale Dynamics 1st Edition Christian Kuehn Auth https://ebookbell.com/product/multiple-time-scale-dynamics-1st- edition-christian-kuehn-auth-5032654
Multiple Time Series Models 1st Edition Patrick T Brandt John T Williams
Multiple Time Series Models 1st Edition Patrick T Brandt John T Williams
Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences A S AG E P U B L I C AT I O N S S E R I E S 1. Analysis of Variance, 2nd Edition Iversen/ Norpoth 2. Operations Research Methods Nagel/Neef 3. Causal Modeling, 2nd Edition Asher 4. Tests of Significance Henkel 5. Cohort Analysis, 2nd Edition Glenn 6. Canonical Analysis and Factor Comparison Levine 7. Analysis of Nominal Data, 2nd Edition Reynolds 8. Analysis of Ordinal Data Hildebrand/Laing/Rosenthal 9. Time Series Analysis, 2nd Edition Ostrom 10. Ecological Inference Langbein/Lichtman 11. Multidimensional Scaling Kruskal/Wish 12. Analysis of Covariance Wildt/Ahtola 13. Introduction to Factor Analysis Kim/Mueller 14. Factor Analysis Kim/Mueller 15. Multiple Indicators Sullivan/Feldman 16. Exploratory Data Analysis Hartwig/Dearing 17. Reliability and Validity Assessment Carmines/Zeller 18. Analyzing Panel Data Markus 19. Discriminant Analysis Klecka 20. Log-Linear Models Knoke/Burke 21. Interrupted Time Series Analysis McDowall/McCleary/Meidinger/Hay 22. Applied Regression Lewis-Beck 23. Research Designs Spector 24. Unidimensional Scaling McIver/Carmines 25. Magnitude Scaling Lodge 26. Multiattribute Evaluation Edwards/Newman 27. Dynamic Modeling Huckfeldt/Kohfeld/Likens 28. Network Analysis Knoke/Kuklinski 29. Interpreting and Using Regression Achen 30. Test Item Bias Osterlind 31. Mobility Tables Hout 32. Measures of Association Liebetrau 33. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Long 34. Covariance Structure Models Long 35. Introduction to Survey Sampling Kalton 36. Achievement Testing Bejar 37. Nonrecursive Causal Models Berry 38. Matrix Algebra Namboodiri 39. Introduction to Applied Demography Rives/Serow 40. Microcomputer Methods for Social Scientists, 2nd Edition Schrodt 41. Game Theory Zagare 42. Using Published Data Jacob 43. Bayesian Statistical Inference Iversen 44. Cluster Analysis Aldenderfer/Blashfield 45. Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit Models Aldrich/Nelson 46. Event History Analysis Allison 47. Canonical Correlation Analysis Thompson 48. Models for Innovation Diffusion Mahajan/ Peterson 49. Basic Content Analysis, 2nd Edition Weber 50. Multiple Regression in Practice Berry/ Feldman 51. Stochastic Parameter Regression Models Newbold/Bos 52. Using Microcomputers in Research Madron/Tate/Brookshire 53. Secondary Analysis of Survey Data Kiecolt/Nathan 54. Multivariate Analysis of Variance Bray/Maxwell 55. The Logic of Causal Order Davis 56. Introduction to Linear Goal Programming Ignizio 57. Understanding Regression Analysis Schroeder/Sjoquist/Stephan 58. Randomized Response Fox/Tracy 59. Meta-Analysis Wolf 60. Linear Programming Feiring 61. Multiple Comparisons Klockars/Sax 62. Information Theory Krippendorff 63. Survey Questions Converse/Presser 64. Latent Class Analysis McCutcheon 65. Three-Way Scaling and Clustering Arabie/Carroll/DeSarbo 66. Q Methodology McKeown/Thomas 67. Analyzing Decision Making Louviere 68. Rasch Models for Measurement Andrich 69. Principal Components Analysis Dunteman 70. Pooled Time Series Analysis Sayrs 71. Analyzing Complex Survey Data, 2nd Edition Lee/Forthofer 72. Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression, 2nd Edition Jaccard/Turrisi 73. Understanding Significance Testing Mohr 74. Experimental Design and Analysis Brown/ Melamed 75. Metric Scaling Weller/Romney 76. Longitudinal Research, 2nd Edition Menard 77. Expert Systems Benfer/Brent/Furbee 78. Data Theory and Dimensional Analysis Jacoby 79. Regression Diagnostics Fox 80. Computer-Assisted Interviewing Saris 81. Contextual Analysis Iversen 82. Summated Rating Scale Construction Spector 83. Central Tendency and Variability Weisberg 84. ANOVA: Repeated Measures Girden 85. Processing Data Bourque/Clark 86. Logit Modeling DeMaris
87. Analytic Mapping and Geographic Databases Garson/Biggs 88. Working With Archival Data Elder/Pavalko/Clipp 89. Multiple Comparison Procedures Toothaker 90. Nonparametric Statistics Gibbons 91. Nonparametric Measures of Association Gibbons 92. Understanding Regression Assumptions Berry 93. Regression With Dummy Variables Hardy 94. Loglinear Models With Latent Variables Hagenaars 95. Bootstrapping Mooney/Duval 96. Maximum Likelihood Estimation Eliason 97. Ordinal Log-Linear Models Ishii-Kuntz 98. Random Factors in ANOVA Jackson/ Brashers 99. Univariate Tests for Time Series Models Cromwell/Labys/Terraza 100. Multivariate Tests for Time Series Models Cromwell/Hannan/Labys/Terraza 101. Interpreting Probability Models: Logit, Probit, and Other Generalized Linear Models Liao 102. Typologies and Taxonomies Bailey 103. Data Analysis: An Introduction Lewis-Beck 104. Multiple Attribute Decision Making Yoon/Hwang 105. Causal Analysis With Panel Data Finkel 106. Applied Logistic Regression Analysis, 2nd Edition Menard 107. Chaos and Catastrophe Theories Brown 108. Basic Math for Social Scientists: Concepts Hagle 109. Basic Math for Social Scientists: Problems and Solutions Hagle 110. Calculus Iversen 111. Regression Models: Censored, Sample Selected, or Truncated Data Breen 112. Tree Models of Similarity and Association James E. Corter 113. Computational Modeling Taber/Timpone 114. LISREL Approaches to Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression Jaccard/Wan 115. Analyzing Repeated Surveys Firebaugh 116. Monte Carlo Simulation Mooney 117. Statistical Graphics for Univariate and Bivariate Data Jacoby 118. Interaction Effects in Factorial Analysis of Variance Jaccard 119. Odds Ratios in the Analysis of Contingency Tables Rudas 120. Statistical Graphics for Visualizing Multivariate Data Jacoby 121. Applied Correspondence Analysis Clausen 122. Game Theory Topics Fink/Gates/Humes 123. Social Choice: Theory and Research Johnson 124. Neural Networks Abdi/Valentin/Edelman 125. Relating Statistics and Experimental Design: An Introduction Levin 126. Latent Class Scaling Analysis Dayton 127. Sorting Data: Collection and Analysis Coxon 128. Analyzing Documentary Accounts Hodson 129. Effect Size for ANOVA Designs Cortina/Nouri 130. Nonparametric Simple Regression: Smoothing Scatterplots Fox 131. Multiple and Generalized Nonparametric Regression Fox 132. Logistic Regression: A Primer Pampel 133. Translating Questionnaires and Other Research Instruments: Problems and Solutions Behling/Law 134. Generalized Linear Models: A United Approach Gill 135. Interaction Effects in Logistic Regression Jaccard 136. Missing Data Allison 137. Spline Regression Models Marsh/Cormier 138. Logit and Probit: Ordered and Multinomial Models Borooah 139. Correlation: Parametric and Nonparametric Measures Chen/Popovich 140. Confidence Intervals Smithson 141. Internet Data Collection Best/Krueger 142. Probability Theory Rudas 143. Multilevel Modeling Luke 144. Polytomous Item Response Theory Models Ostini/Nering 145. An Introduction to Generalized Linear Models Dunteman/Ho 146. Logistic Regression Models for Ordinal Response Variables O’Connell 147. Fuzzy Set Theory: Applications in the Social Sciences Smithson/Verkuilen 148. Multiple Time Series Models Brandt/Williams Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences A S AG E P U B L I C AT I O N S S E R I E S
Series/Number 07–148 MULTIPLE TIME SERIES MODELS Patrick T. Brandt University of Texas at Dallas John T. Williams University of California, Riverside
Copyright Ó 2007 by Sage Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. For information: Sage Publications, Inc. 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, California 91320 E-mail: order@sagepub.com Sage Publications Ltd. 1 Oliver’s Yard 55 City Road London EC1Y 1SP United Kingdom Sage Publications India Pvt. Ltd. B-42, Panchsheel Enclave Post Box 4109 New Delhi 110 017 India Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Brandt, Patrick T. Multiple time series models / Patrick T. Brandt, John T. Williams. p. cm. — (Quantitative applications in the social sciences, vol. 148) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-4129-0656-3; 978-1-4129-0656-2 (pbk.) 1. Times series analysis—Mathematical models. I. Williams, John T. II. Title. III. Series: Sage university papers series. Quantitative applications in the social sciences. HA30.3.B73 2007 519.55—dc22 2006010016 This book is printed on acid-free paper. 05 06 07 08 09 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Acquisitions Editor: Lisa Cuevas Shaw Associate Editor: Margo Beth Crouppen Editorial Assistant: Karen Greene Production Editor: Melanie Birdsall Copy Editor: QuADS Prepress (P) Ltd. Typesetter: CM Digitals (P) Ltd Indexer: Ellen Slavitz Cover Designer: Janet Foulger
CONTENTS List of Figures vii List of Tables viii Series Editor’s Introduction ix Preface xi 1. Introduction to Multiple Time Series Models 1 1.1 Simultaneous Equation Approach 4 1.2 ARIMA Approach 6 1.3 Error Correction or LSE Approach 7 1.4 Vector Autoregression Approach 9 1.5 Comparison and Summary 12 2. Basic Vector Autoregression Models 14 2.1 Dynamic Structural Equation Models 15 2.2 Reduced Form Vector Autoregressions 18 2.3 Relationship of a Dynamic Structural Equation Model to a Vector Autoregression Model 20 2.4 Working With This Model 22 2.5 Specification and Analysis of VAR Models 23 2.5.1 Estimation of VAR 24 2.5.2 Lag Length Specification 24 2.5.3 Testing Serial Correlation in the Residuals 28 2.5.4 Granger Causality 32 2.5.5 Interpreting Granger Causality 34 2.5.6 Testing Other Restrictions in a VAR Model 36 2.5.7 Impulse Response and Moving Average Response Analysis 36 2.5.8 Error Bands for Impulse Responses 41 2.5.9 Innovation Accounting or Decomposition of Forecast Error Variance 45 2.6 Other Specification Issues 48 2.6.1 Should Differencing Be Used for Trending Data? 49 2.6.2 Data Transformations and Whitening 49
2.7 Unit Roots and Error Correction in VARs 50 2.7.1 Error Correction Representation of Unit Root Data 50 2.7.2 Error Correction as a VAR Model 52 2.7.3 VAR Versus VECM (ECM) 54 2.8 Criticisms of VAR 56 3. Examples of VAR Analyses 59 3.1 Public Mood and Macropartisanship 59 3.1.1 Testing for Unit Roots 61 3.1.2 Specifying the Lag Length 62 3.1.3 Estimation of the VAR 63 3.1.4 Granger Causality Testing 65 3.1.5 Decomposition of the Forecast Error Variance 66 3.1.6 Impulse Response Analysis 68 3.2 Effective Corporate Tax Rates 71 3.2.1 Data 72 3.2.2 Testing for Unit Roots 73 3.2.3 Specifying the Lag Length 73 3.2.4 Granger Causality Testing 74 3.2.5 Impulse Response Analysis 77 3.2.6 Decomposition of the Forecast Error Variance 79 3.2.7 A Further Robustness Check 81 3.3 Conclusion 82 Appendix: Software for Multiple Time Series Models 85 Notes 89 References 92 Index 96 About the Authors 99
LIST OF FIGURES 3.1 Quarterly Macropartisanship and Public Mood, 1958:4–1996:4 60 3.2 Impulse Response Analysis for Macropartisanship and Public Mood 68 3.3 Impulse Response Analysis for Macropartisanship and Public Mood 70 3.4 ECTR Data 72 3.5 Moving Average Responses for Four-Variable VAR With 90% Error Bands, 1977–1994 79 3.6 Moving Average Responses for Four-Variable VAR With 90% Error Bands, 1953–1994 83 vii
LIST OF TABLES 1.1 Comparison of Time Series Modeling Approaches 13 3.1 Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test Results 62 3.2 AIC and BIC Values for Macropartisanship and Public Mood VAR 63 3.3 Likelihood Ratio Tests for Lag Length 64 3.4 VAR Estimates for the 1-Lag Model of Public Mood and Macropartisanship 64 3.5 Granger Causality Tests for Public Mood and Macropartisanship Based on the VAR(1) Model 65 3.6 Decomposition of the Forecast Error Variance for the VAR(2) Model of Public Mood and Macropartisanship 67 3.7 Unit Root Tests for ECTR Example Variables 73 3.8 AIC and BIC Lag Length Diagnostics for the ECTR VAR Model 74 3.9 Likelihood Ratio Tests for Lag Length 75 3.10 Exogeneity Tests for ECTR and Corporate Political Action Committees, 1977–1994 76 3.11 Exogeneity Tests for ECTR, Real Investment, and Real Income: 1953–1994, 1960–1994, 1977–1994 77 3.12 Decomposition of Error Variance for VAR 80 viii
SERIES EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION Social and economic scientists have long been fascinated by and taken advantage of time series data. A first systematic exploitation of the richness of such data is William Playfair’s The Commercial and Political Atlas, pub- lished 220 years ago and containing 43 time series graphs. By plotting the national debt of England against time, for example, Playfair could easily identify the impact of major historical events such as the accession of Queen Anne in 1701, the Spanish War of the 1730s, and the American (Revolutionary) War that began in 1775. Playfair also used graphs with more than one time series. The graph below charts the curve of imports and that of the exports against time, clearly demonstrating that there is a relationship between the two as well as between them and time, not to mention the main purpose of Playfair’s defining import-export balance against and in favor of England. Charts like this show that the two time series may not be independent processes. The usefulness of time series graphs notwithstanding, Playfair’s presen- tation leaves many questions unanswered. What caused imports or exports to rise and fall? Did the amount of imports have an impact on the amount of s t r o p m I f o e n i L s t r o p x E f o e n i L s t r o p m I s t r o p x E 1700 1710 1720 1730 1740 1750 1760 1770 1780 BALANCE in FAVOR of ENGLAND 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100,000 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 Exports and Imports To and From Denmark and Norway From 1700 to 1780 The bottom line is divided into years, the right-hand line into £10,000 each. BALANCE AGAINST SOURCE: www.unc.edu/~nielsen/soci208/m2/m2033.jpg ix
exports and vice versa? Perhaps most important and interesting, what changed the regime of import-export balance from against to in favor of England? Answering these questions requires a proper analysis of the dynamic simultaneous processes, and Brandt and Williams’s Multiple Time Series Models, seen by my predecessor Michael Lewis-Beck as a worth- while project, presents methods for such analyses. The authors discuss the assumptions and specificities of four main approaches for time series data: autoregressive integrated moving average models, simultaneous equation systems, error correction models, and vec- tor autoregression (VAR) models. They then focus on the details such as the specification and estimation of inference in VAR as well as tests for Granger causality and assessment of dynamic causal relationships via impulse response functions and measures of uncertainty before offering two complete examples of the VAR model of multiple time series data. A welcome addition to the series, this book complements the existing volumes of Time Series Analysis (No. 9), Univariate Tests for Time Series Models (No. 99), and Multivariate Tests for Time Series Models (No. 100). —Tim Futing Liao Series Editor x
PREFACE About This Book This project is several years in the making. John first proposed writing this book to me in 1999 when he was teaching time series analysis and I was his teaching assistant at the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) Summer Program at the University of Michi- gan. The project sat idle until John revived the idea in 2002—although we had discussed it in the interim. Regrettably, John passed away in September 2004 while we were work- ing on this book. Prior to this tragic event, we had actually completed a fair amount of the outline and plan for the book. John’s influence pervades this book—from the way the ideas are presented to the general outlook of how to ‘‘do’’ multiple time series analysis. I have tried to stay as close as possi- ble to the original conception of the project that John and I devised. I have been aided by a series of notes that were found in John’s files. In 1994 and 1995, John did a series of lectures on vector autoregression and multiple time series models, at, among other places, the ICPSR Summer Program. Ken Bickers, Shaun Bowler, Mike McGinnis, and Matthew Potoski thankfully were able to recover these notes from his files. Regretta- bly, though, they had never been updated, so they only reflected the ‘‘state of the art’’ circa 1994. In addition, several important topics were missing from these notes, including a discussion of error correction models (Sec- tions 1.3 and 2.7), new results on Granger causality testing (Section 2.5.4), and probability assessment methods for impulse responses (Section 2.5.8). In addition, the notes included only bullet points for the discussion in Chap- ter 1, not the full discussion included herein. John and I have incurred a number of debts in the course of writing this book. We would first like to thank our friend, coauthor, and collaborator John Freeman for his steadfast role as a supporter and commentator for both of us over the years. We owe a debt of gratitude to our original Sage series editor, Michael Lewis-Beck, who worked with us to define the project and get it accepted by Sage. The current series editor, Tim Liao, has been espe- cially helpful as I have worked to complete the book. I would like to thank the University of North Texas and its Political Science Department, which were my home when I started this project. Ken Bickers, Mike McGinnis, and Matthew Potoski also deserve special thanks for sorting out John’s files and finding his notes on these topics. Without these files, completing the manuscript would have taken much longer. I am also indebted to the many xi
students to whom John taught this material over the years at Indiana and the ICPSR Summer Program at the University of Michigan. I wish I could list all of you here, because I know how much John meant to you and you to him. Thanks are also due to Hank Heitoweit for inviting John to teach some of this material at the ICPSR Summer Program over the years and inviting me to be a teaching assistant for John’s time series course in 1999. I also thank Harold Clarke, who provided a wonderful two-day forum where I could try out this material in front of a great audience of his (and my now current) colleagues and students in the fall of 2004. Mike Colaresi (one of John’s former students and a friend) discussed some of John’s general approach to time series with me, reminded me of some key ideas, and pro- vided a critical reading of the manuscript. Finally, Justin Appleby, Mehmet Gurses, Thomas Sattler, Patrick Sellers, and Chu-Ping Vijverberg provided helpful feedback on the nearly completed manuscript. Background Material and Plan of the Book This book covers advanced topics in the analysis of multiple time series. By multiple time series, we mean time-ordered data where there is more than one (endogenous) variable of interest. For example, if one were to model the determinants of the percentage of Americans who claim to be Democrats (known as aggregate partisanship), an important explanatory factor might be the general public support for the policies of the U.S. gov- ernment. But support for these policies will be colored by the same aggre- gate partisanship of the general public. Some of the relationships among these variables can be described by recent history (past values), whereas other aspects depend on contemporaneously related factors. Thus, one needs to consider models that allow for endogenous, dynamic relationships between these two variables. This book is about describing and making informed inferences about such endogenous, dynamic relationships. This book assumes a certain basic facility with several topics. First, we assume a basic knowledge of matrix algebra and the representation of sys- tems of equations using matrices. Second, we assume a working (and likely good) understanding of general linear regression models. Finally, we assume the reader is familiar with or can consult a basic text on univariate time series analysis such as Harvey (1990), Mills (1991), or Ostrom (1990). The basic plan of this book is as follows. We first address the philosophi- cal and methodological choices in the specification of multiple time series models. This begins with a treatment of (dynamic) simultaneous equations and univariate time series models. Our goal in this discussion is to illumi- nate the trade-offs implicit in different specification and identification assumptions. We then discuss how different time series models and xii
Random documents with unrelated content Scribd suggests to you:
“To this Gen. Cass is reported to have replied as follows, to wit: “Mr. Cass said, that the course of the Senator from New Jersey was most extraordinary. Last year he (Mr. Cass) should have voted for the proposition had it come up. But circumstances had altogether changed. The honorable Senator then read several passages from the remarks as given above, which he had committed to writing, in order to refute such a charge as that of the Senator from New Jersey.’ “In the ‘remarks above committed to writing,’ is one numbered 4, as follows, to wit: “‘4th. Legislation would now be wholly imperative, because no territory hereafter to be acquired can be governed without an act of Congress providing for its government. And such an act, on its passage, would open the whole subject, and leave the Congress, called on to pass it, free to exercise its own discretion, entirely uncontrolled by any declaration found in the statute book.’ “In Niles’ Register, vol. 73, page 293, there is a letter of General Cass to A. O. P. Nicholson, of Nashville, Tennessee dated December 24, 1847, from which the following are correct extracts: “‘The Wilmot Proviso has been before the country some time. It has been repeatedly discussed in Congress, and by the public press. I am strongly impressed with the opinion that a great change has been going on in the public mind upon this subject​ —​ in my own as well as others; and that doubts are resolving themselves into convictions, that the principle it involves should be kept out of the National Legislature, and left to the people of the Confederacy in their respective local Governments. “‘Briefly, then, I am opposed to the exercise of any jurisdiction by Congress over this matter; and I am in favor of
leaving the people of any territory which may be hereafter acquired, the right to regulate it themselves, under the general principles of the Constitution. Because, “‘1. I do not see in the Constitution any grant of the requisite power to Congress; and I am not disposed to extend a doubtful precedent beyond its necessity​ —​ the establishment of territorial governments when needed​ —​ leaving to the inhabitants all the rights compatible with the relations they bear to the Confederation.’ “These extracts show that, in 1846, General Cass was for the Proviso at once; that, in March, 1847, he was still for it, but not just then; and that in December, 1847, he was against it altogether. This is a true index to the whole man. When the question was raised in 1846, he was in a blustering hurry to take ground for it. He sought to be in advance, and to avoid the uninteresting position of a mere follower, but soon he began to see glimpses of the great Democratic ox-gad waving in his face, and to hear indistinctly, a voice saying, ‘back,’ ‘back, sir,’ ‘back a little.’ He shakes his head and bats his eyes, and blunders back to his position of March, 1847; but still the gad waves, and the voice grows more distinct, and sharper still​ —​ ‘back, sir!’ ‘back, I say!’ ‘further back!’ and back he goes to the position of December, 1847; at which the gad is still, and the voice soothingly says​ —​ ‘So!’ ‘Stand still at that.’ “Have no fears, gentlemen, of your candidate; he exactly suits you, and we congratulate you upon it. However much you may be distressed about our candidate, you have all cause to be contented and happy with your own. If elected, he may not maintain all, or even any of his positions previously taken; but he will be sure to do whatever the party exigency, for the time being, may require; and that is precisely what you want. He and Van Buren are the same ‘manner of men;’ and like Van Buren, he will never desert you till you first desert him.”
After referring at some length to extra “charges” of General Cass upon the Treasury, Mr. Lincoln continued:​ —​ “But I have introduced General Cass’s accounts here, chiefly to show the wonderful physical capacities of the man. They show that he not only did the labor of several men at the same time, but that he often did it, at several places many hundred miles apart, at the same time. And at eating, too, his capacities are shown to be quite as wonderful. From October, 1821, to May, 1822, he ate ten rations a day in Michigan, ten rations a day here, in Washington, and nearly five dollar’s worth a day besides, partly on the road between the two places. And then there is an important discovery in his example​ —​ the art of being paid for what one eats, instead of having to pay for it. Hereafter, if any nice young man shall owe a bill which he can not pay in any other way, he can just board it out. Mr. Speaker, we have all heard of the animal standing in doubt between two stacks of hay, and starving to death; the like of that would never happen to General Cass. Place the stacks a thousand miles apart, he would stand stock-still, midway between them, and eat them both at once; and the green grass along the line would be apt to suffer some too, at the same time. By all means make him President, gentlemen. He will feed you bounteously​ —​ if if​ —​ there is any left after he shall have helped himself. “But as General Taylor, is, par excellence, the hero of the Mexican war; and, as you Democrats say we Whigs have always opposed the war, you think it must be very awkward and embarrassing for us to go for General Taylor. The declaration that we have always opposed the war, is true or false accordingly as one may understand the term ‘opposing the war.’ If to say ‘the war was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President,’ be opposing the war, then the Whigs have very generally opposed it. Whenever they have spoken at all, they have said this; and they have said it on what
has appeared good reason to them: The marching an army into the midst of a peaceful Mexican settlement, frightening the inhabitants away, leaving their growing crops and other property to destruction, to you may appear a perfectly amiable, peaceful, unprovoking procedure; but it does not appear so to us. So to call such an act, to us appears no other than a naked, impudent absurdity, and we speak of it accordingly. But if, when the war had begun, and had become the cause of the country, the giving of our money and our blood, in common with yours, was support of the war, then it is not true that we have always opposed the war. With few individual exceptions, you have constantly had our votes here for all the necessary supplies. And, more than this, you have had the services, the blood, and the lives of our political brethren in every trial, and on every field. The beardless boy and the mature man​ —​ the humble and the distinguished, you have had them. Through suffering and death, by disease and in battle, they have endured, and fought, and fallen with you. Clay and Webster each gave a son, never to be returned. From the State of my own residence, besides other worthy but less known Whig names, we sent Marshall, Morrison, Baker, and Hardin; they all fought, and one fell, and in the fall of that one, we lost our best Whig man. Nor were the Whigs few in number, or laggard in the day of danger. In that fearful, bloody, breathless struggle at Buena Vista, where each man’s hard task was to beat back five foes, or die himself, of the five high officers who perished, four were Whigs. “In speaking of this, I mean no odious comparison between the lion-hearted Whigs and Democrats who fought there. On other occasions, and among the lower officers and privates on that occasion, I doubt not the proportion was different. I wish to do justice to all. I think of all those brave men as Americans, in whose proud fame, as an American, I too have a share. Many of them, Whigs and Democrats, are my constituents and personal friends; and I thank them​ —​ more than thank them​ —​ one and all,
for the high, imperishable honor they have conferred on our common State. “But the distinction between the cause of the President in beginning the war, and the cause of the country after it was begun, is a distinction which you can not perceive. To you, the President and the country seem to be all one. You are interested to see no distinction between them; and I venture to suggest that possibly your interest blinds you a little. We see the distinction, as we think, clearly enough; and our friends, who have fought in the war, have no difficulty in seeing it also. What those who have fallen would say, were they alive and here, of course we can never know; but with those who have returned there is no difficulty. Colonel Haskell and Major Gaines, members here, both fought in the war; and one of them underwent extraordinary perils and hardships; still they, like all other Whigs here, vote on the record that the war was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President. And even General Taylor himself, the noblest Roman of them all, has declared that, as a citizen, and particularly as a soldier, it is sufficient for him to know that his country is at war with a foreign nation, to do all in his power to bring it to a speedy and honorable termination, by the most vigorous and energetic operations, without inquiring about its justice, or any thing else connected with it. “Mr. Speaker, let our Democratic friends be comforted with the assurance that we are content with our position, content with our company, and content with our candidate; and that although they, in their generous sympathy, think we ought to be miserable, we really are not, and that they may dismiss the great anxiety they have on our account.” * * * * *
SPEECH IN REPLY TO MR. DOUGLAS, ON KANSAS, THE DRED SCOTT DECISION, AND THE UTAH QUESTION. (Delivered at Springfield, Ill., June 26, 1857.) “Fellow-Citizens:​ —​ I am here, to-night, partly by the invitation of some of you, and partly by my own inclination. Two weeks ago Judge Douglas spoke here, on the several subjects of Kansas, the Dred Scott decision, and Utah. I listened to the speech at the time, and have read the report of it since. It was intended to controvert opinions which I think just, and to assail (politically, not personally) those men who, in common with me, entertain those opinions. For this reason I wished then, and still wish to make some answer to it which I now take the opportunity of doing. “I begin with Utah. If it prove to be true, as is probable, that the people of Utah are in open rebellion against the United States, then Judge Douglas is in favor of repealing their territorial organization, and attaching them to the adjoining States for judicial purposes. I say, too, if they are in rebellion, they ought to be somehow coerced to obedience; and I am not now prepared to admit or deny, that the Judge’s mode of coercing them is not as good as any. The Republicans can fall in with it, without taking back any thing they have ever said. To be sure, it would be a considerable backing down by Judge Douglas, from his much vaunted doctrine of self-government for the territories; but this is only additional proof of what was very plain from the beginning, that that doctrine was a mere deceitful pretence for the benefit of slavery. Those who could not see that much in the Nebraska act itself, which forced Governors, and Secretaries, and Judges on the people of the
territories, without their choice or consent, could not be made to see, though one should rise from the dead. “But in all this, it is very plain the Judge evades the only question the Republicans have ever pressed upon the Democracy in regard to Utah. That question the Judge well knew to be this: ‘If the people of Utah shall peacefully form a State Constitution tolerating polygamy, will the Democracy admit them into the Union?’ There is nothing in the United States Constitution or law against polygamy; and why is it not a part of the Judge’s ‘sacred right of self-government’ for the people to have it, or rather to keep it, if they choose? These questions, so far as I know, the Judge never answers. It might involve the Democracy to answer them either way and they go unanswered. “As to Kansas. The substance of the Judge’s speech on Kansas, is an effort to put the Free State men in the wrong for not voting at the election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention. He says: ‘There is every reason to hope and believe that the law will be fairly interpreted and impartially executed, so as to insure to every bona fide inhabitant the free and quiet exercise of the elective franchise.’ “It appears extraordinary that Judge Douglas should make such a statement. He knows that, by the law, no one can vote who has not been registered; and he knows that the Free State men place their refusal to vote on the ground that but few of them have been registered. It is possible this is not true, but Judge Douglas knows it is asserted to be true in letters, newspapers, and public speeches, and borne by every mail, and blown by every breeze to the eyes and ears of the world. He knows it is boldly declared, that the people of many whole counties, and many whole neighborhoods in others, are left unregistered; yet he does not venture to contradict the declaration, or to point out how they can vote without being registered; but he just slips along, not seeming to know there is
any such question of fact, and complacently declares, ‘There is every reason to hope and believe that the law will be fairly and impartially executed, so as to insure to every bona fide inhabitant the free and quiet exercise of the elective franchise.’ “I readily agree that if all had a chance to vote, they ought to have voted. If, on the contrary, as they allege, and Judge Douglas ventures not particularly to contradict, few only of the Free State men had a chance to vote, they were perfectly right in staying from the polls in a body. “By the way, since the Judge spoke, the Kansas election has come off. The Judge expressed his confidence that all the Democrats in Kansas would do their duty​ —​ including ‘Free State Democrats’ of course. The returns received here, as yet, are very incomplete; but, so far as they go, they indicate that only about one-sixth of the registered voters, have really voted; and this, too, when not more, perhaps, than one-half of the rightful voters have been registered, thus showing the thing to have been altogether the most exquisite farce ever enacted. I am watching with considerable interest, to ascertain what figure ‘the Free State Democrats’ cut in the concern. Of course they voted​ —​ all Democrats do their duty​ —​ and of course they did not vote for Slave State candidates. We soon shall know how many delegates they elected, how many candidates they have pledged to a free State, and how many votes were cast for them. “Allow me to barely whisper my suspicion, that there were no such things in Kansas as ‘Free State Democrats’​ —​ that they were altogether mythical, good only to figure in newspapers and speeches in the free States. If there should prove to be one real, living free State Democrat in Kansas, I suggest that it might be well to catch him, and stuff and preserve his skin, as an interesting specimen of that soon to be extinct variety of the genus Democrat.
“And now, as to the Dred Scott decision. That decision declares two propositions​ —​ first, that a negro cannot sue in the United States Courts; and secondly, that Congress can not prohibit slavery in the Territories. It was made by a divided court​ —​ dividing differently on the different points. Judge Douglas does not discuss the merits of the decision, and in that respect, I shall follow his example, believing I could no more improve upon McLean and Curtis, than he could on Taney. “He denounces all who question the correctness of that decision, as offering violent resistance to it. But who resists it? Who has, in spite of the decision, declared Dred Scott free, and resisted the authority of his master over him? “Judicial decisions have two uses​ —​ first, to absolutely determine the case decided; and secondly to indicate to the public how other similar cases will be decided when they arise. For the latter use, they are called ‘precedents’ and ‘authorities.’ “We believe as much as Judge Douglas (perhaps more) in obedience to, and respect for the judicial department of Government. We think its decisions on Constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control, not only the particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country subject to be disturbed only by amendments of the Constitution, as provided in that instrument itself. More than this would be revolution. But we think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We know the court that made it has often overruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it overrule this. We offer no resistance to it. “Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents, according to circumstances. That this should be so, accords both with common sense, and the customary understanding of the legal profession. “If this important decision had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without any
apparent partisan bias, and in accordance with legal public expectation, and with the steady practice of the departments, throughout our history, and had been in no part based on assumed historical facts which are not really true; or, if wanting in some of these, it had been before the court more than once, and had there been affirmed and re-affirmed through a course of years, it then might be, perhaps would be, factious, nay, even revolutionary, not to acquiesce in it as a precedent. “But when, as is true, we find it wanting in all these claims to the public confidence, it is not resistance, it is not factious, it is not even disrespectful, to treat it as not having yet quite established a settled doctrine for the country. But Judge Douglas considers this view awful. Hear him: “‘The courts are the tribunals prescribed by the Constitution and created by the authority of the people to determine, expound, and enforce the law. Hence, whoever resists the final decision of the highest judicial tribunal, aims a deadly blow to our whole Republican system of government​ —​ a blow which, if successful, would place all our rights and liberties at the mercy of passion, anarchy and violence. I repeat, therefore, that if resistance to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, in a matter like the points decided in the Dred Scott case, clearly within their jurisdiction as defined by the Constitution, shall be forced upon the country as a political issue, it will become a distinct and naked issue between the friends and enemies of the Constitution​ —​ the friends and enemies of the supremacy of the laws.’ “Why, this same Supreme Court once decided a national bank to be Constitutional; but General Jackson, as President of the United States, disregarded the decision, and vetoed a bill for a re-charter, partly on Constitutional ground, declaring that each public functionary must support the Constitution, ‘as he understands it.’ But hear the General’s own words. Here they are, taken from his veto message:
“‘It is maintained by the advocates of the bank, that its Constitutionality, in all its features, ought to be considered as settled by precedent, and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I can not assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be regarded as deciding questions of Constitutional power, except where the acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered as well settled. So far from this being the case on this subject, an argument against the bank might be based on precedent. One Congress, in 1791, decided in favor of a bank; another, in 1811, decided against it. One Congress, in 1815, decided against a bank; another, in 1816, decided in its favor. Prior to the present Congress, therefore, the precedents drawn from that source were equal. If we resort to the States, the expression of legislative, judicial, and executive opinions against the bank have been probably to those in its favor as four to one. There is nothing in precedent, therefore, which, if its authority were admitted, ought to weigh in favor of the act before me.’ “I drop the quotations merely to remark, that all there ever was, in the way of precedent up to the Dred Scott decision, on the points therein decided, had been against that decision. But hear General Jackson further: “‘If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the co-ordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive and the Court, must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer, who takes an oath to support the Constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others.’ “Again and again have I heard Judge Douglas denounce that bank decision, and applaud General Jackson for disregarding it. It would be interesting for him to look over his recent speech, and see how exactly his fierce philippics against us for resisting Supreme Court decisions, fall upon his own
head. It will call to mind a long and fierce political war in this country, upon an issue which, in his own language, and, of course, in his own changeless estimation, was ‘a distinct issue between the friends and the enemies of the Constitution,’ and in which war he fought in the ranks of the enemies of the Constitution. “I have said, in substance, that the Dred Scott decision was, in part, based on assumed historical facts which were not really true, and I ought not to leave the subject without giving some reasons for saying this; I, therefore, give an instance or two, which I think fully sustain me. Chief Justice Taney, in delivering the opinion of the majority of the Court, insists at great length, that negroes were no part of the people who made, or for whom was made, the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution of the United States. “On the contrary, Judge Curtis, in his dissenting opinion, shows that in five of the then thirteen States, to wit: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, free negroes were voters, and, in proportion to their numbers, had the same part in making the Constitution that the white people had. He shows this with so much particularity as to leave no doubt of its truth; and as a sort of conclusion on that point, holds the following language: “‘The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States, through the action, in each State, of those persons who were qualified by its laws to act thereon in behalf of themselves and all other citizens of the State. In some of the States, as we have seen, colored persons were among those qualified by law to act on the subject. These colored persons were not only included in the body of ‘the people of the United States,’ by whom the Constitution was ordained and established; but in at least five of the States they had the power to act, and, doubtless, did act, by their suffrages, upon the question of its adoption.’
“Again, Chief Justice Taney says: ‘It is difficult, at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted.’ And again, after quoting from the Declaration, he says: ‘The general words above quoted would seem to include the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day, would be so understood.’ “In these the Chief Justice does not directly assert, but plainly assumes, as a fact, that the public estimate of the black man is more favorable now than it was in the days of the Revolution. This assumption is a mistake. In some trifling particulars, the condition of that race has been ameliorated; but as a whole, in this country, the change between then and now is decidedly the other way; and their ultimate destiny has never appeared so hopeless as in the last three or four years. In two of the five States​ —​ New Jersey and North Carolina​ —​ that then gave the free negro the right of voting, the right has since been taken away; and in the third​ —​ New York​ —​ it has been greatly abridged; while it has not been extended, so far as I know, to a single additional State, though the number of the States has more than doubled. In those days, as I understand, masters could, at their own pleasure, emancipate their slaves; but since then such legal restraints have been made upon emancipation as to amount almost to prohibition. In those days ‘Legislatures held the unquestioned power to abolish slavery in their respective States; but now it is becoming quite fashionable for State Constitutions to withhold that power from the Legislatures. In those days by common consent, the spread of the black man’s bondage to the new countries was prohibited; but now, Congress decides that it will not continue the prohibition​ —​ and the Supreme Court decides that it could not if it would. In those days our Declaration of Independence was held sacred by all, and thought to include all; but now, to aid in
making the bondage of the negro universal and eternal, it is assailed, sneered at, construed, hawked at, and torn, till, if its framers could rise from their graves, they could not at all recognize it. All the powers of earth seem rapidly combining against him. Mammon is after him; ambition follows, philosophy follows, and the theology of the day is fast joining the cry. They have him in his prison-house; they have searched his person, and left no prying instrument with him. One after another they have closed the heavy iron doors upon him; and now they have him, as it were, bolted in with a lock of a hundred keys, which can never be unlocked without the concurrence of every key; the keys in the hands of a hundred different men, and they scattered to a hundred different and distant places; and they stand musing as to what invention, in all the dominions of mind and matter, can be produced to make the impossibility of his escape more complete than it is. “It is grossly incorrect to say or assume, that the public estimate of the negro is more favorable now than it was at the origin of the Government. “Three years and a half ago, Judge Douglas brought forward his famous Nebraska bill. The country was at once in a blaze. He scorned all opposition, and carried it through Congress. Since then he has seen himself superseded in a Presidential nomination, by one indorsing the general doctrine of his measure, but at the same time standing clear of the odium of its untimely agitation, and its gross breach of national faith; and he has seen that successful rival Constitutionally elected, not by the strength of friends, but by the division of his adversaries, being in a popular minority of nearly four hundred thousand votes. He has seen his chief aids in his own State, Shields and Richardson, politely speaking, successively tried, convicted, and executed, for an offence not their own, but his. And now he sees his own case, standing next on the docket for trial.
“There is a natural disgust, in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races; and Judge Douglas evidently is basing his chief hope upon the chances of his being able to appropriate the benefit of this disgust to himself. If he can, by much drumming and repeating, fasten the odium of that idea upon his adversaries, he thinks he can struggle through the storm. He, therefore, clings to this hope, as a drowning man to the last plank. He makes an occasion for lugging it in from the opposition to the Dred Scott decision. He finds the Republicans insisting that the Declaration of Independence includes ALL men, black as well as white, and forthwith he boldly denies that it includes negroes at all, and proceeds to argue gravely that all who contend it does do so only because they want to vote, eat and sleep, and marry with negroes. He will have it that they can not be consistent else. Now, I protest against the counterfeit logic which concludes that because I do not want a black woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. I need not have her for either. I can just leave her alone. In some respects she certainly is not my equal; but in her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands, without asking leave of any one else, she is my equal, and the equal of all others. “Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, admits that the language of the Declaration is broad enough to include the whole human family; but he and Judge Douglas argue that the authors of that instrument did not intend to include negroes, by the fact that they did not at once actually place them on an equality with the whites. Now, this grave argument comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact, that they did not at once, or ever afterward, actually place all white people on an equality with one another. And this is the staple argument of both the Chief Justice and the Senator for doing this obvious violence to the plain, unmistakable language of the Declaration.
“I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what respects they did consider all men created equal​ —​ equal with ‘certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ This they said, and this meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact, they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit.” * * * * * SPEECH IN REPLY TO SENATOR DOUGLAS. (At Chicago, on the evening of July 10, 1858.) “My Fellow-Citizens: On yesterday evening, upon the occasion of the reception given to Senator Douglas, I was furnished with a seat very convenient for hearing him, and was otherwise very courteously treated by him and his friends, for which I thank him and them. During the course of his remarks my name was mentioned in such a way as, I suppose, renders it at least not improper that I should make some sort of reply to him. I shall not attempt to follow him in the precise order in which he addressed the assembled multitude upon that occasion, though I shall perhaps do so in the main.
“There was one question to which he asked the attention of the crowd, which I deem of somewhat less importance​ —​ at least of propriety for me to dwell upon​ —​ than the others, which he brought in near the close of his speech, and which I think it would not be entirely proper for me to omit attending to, and yet if I were not to give some attention to it now, I should probably forget it altogether. While I am upon this subject, allow me to say that I do not intend to indulge in that inconvenient mode sometimes adopted in public speaking, of reading from documents; but I shall depart from that rule so far as to read a little scrap from his speech, which notices this first topic of which I shall speak​ —​ that is, provided I can find it in the paper. [Examines the morning’s paper.] “‘I have made up my mind to appeal to the people against the combination that has been made against me! the Republican leaders having formed an alliance, an unholy and unnatural alliance, with a portion of unscrupulous federal office- holders. I intend to fight that allied army wherever I meet them. I know they deny the alliance, but yet these men who are trying to divide the Democratic party for the purpose of electing a Republican Senator in my place, are just as much the agents and tools of the supporters of Mr. Lincoln. Hence I shall deal with this allied army just as the Russians dealt with the allies at Sebastopol​ —​ that is, the Russians did not stop to inquire, when they fired a broadside, whether it hit an Englishman, a Frenchman, or a Turk. Nor will I stop to inquire, nor shall I hesitate, whether my blows shall hit these Republican leaders or their allies, who are holding the federal offices and yet acting in concert with them.’ “Well, now, gentlemen, is not that very alarming? Just to think of it! right at the outset of his canvass, I, a poor, kind, amiable, intelligent gentleman, I am to be slain in this way. Why, my friends, the Judge, is not only, as it turns out, not a dead lion, nor even a living one​ —​ he is the rugged Russian Bear!
“But if they will have it​ —​ for he says that we deny it​ —​ that there is any such alliance as he says there is​ —​ and I don’t propose hanging very much upon this question of veracity​ —​ but if he will have it that there is such an alliance​ —​ that the Administration men and we are allied, and we stand in the attitude of English, French and Turk, he occupying the position of the Russian, in that case, I beg that he will indulge us while we barely suggest to him that these allies took Sebastopol. “Gentlemen, only a few more words as to this alliance. For my part, I have to say, that whether there be such an alliance, depends, so far as I know, upon what may be a right definition of the term alliance. If for the Republican party to see the other great party to which they are opposed divided among themselves, and not try to stop the division and rather be glad of it​ —​ if that is an alliance, I confess I am in; but if it is meant to be said that the Republicans had formed an alliance going beyond that, by which there is contribution of money or sacrifice of principle on the one side or the other so far as the Republican party is concerned, if there be any such thing, I protest that I neither know any thing of it, nor do I believe it. I will, however, say​ —​ as I think this branch of the argument is lugged in​ —​ I would, before I leave it, state, for the benefit of those concerned, that one of those same Buchanan men did once tell me of an argument that he made for his opposition to Judge Douglas. He said that a friend of our Senator Douglas had been talking to him, and had among other things said to him: ‘Why, you don’t want to beat Douglas?’ ‘Yes,’ said he, ‘I do want to beat him, and I will tell you why. I believe his original Nebraska Bill was right in the abstract, but it was wrong in the time that it was brought forward. It was wrong in the application to a Territory in regard to which the question had been settled; it was brought forward in a time when nobody asked him; it was tendered to the South when the South had not asked for it, but when they could not well refuse it; and for this same reason he forced that question upon our party; it has sunk the best men
all over the nation, everywhere; and now when our President, struggling with the difficulties of this man’s getting up, has reached the very hardest point to turn in the case, his deserts him, and I am for putting him where he will trouble us no more.’ “Now, gentlemen, that is not my argument​ —​ that is not my argument at all. I have only been stating to you the argument of a Buchanan man. You will judge if there is any force in it. “Popular sovereignty! everlasting popular sovereignty! Let us for a moment inquire into this vast matter of popular sovereignty. What is popular sovereignty? We recollect that in an early period in the history of this struggle, there was another name for the same thing​ —​ Squatter Sovereignty. It was not exactly Popular Sovereignty, but Squatter Sovereignty. What do those terms mean? What do those terms mean when used now? And vast credit is taken by our friend, the Judge, in regard to his support of it, when he declares the last years of his life have been, and all the future years of his life shall be, devoted to this matter of popular sovereignty. What is it? Why it is the sovereignty of the people! What was Squatter Sovereignty? I suppose if it had any significance at all it was the right of the people to govern themselves, to be sovereign in their own affairs while they were squatted down in a country not their own, while they had squatted on a Territory that did not belong to them, in the sense that a State belongs to the people who inhabit it​ —​ when it belonged to the nation​ —​ such right to govern themselves was called ‘Squatter Sovereignty.’ “Now I wish you to mark. What has become of that Squatter Sovereignty? What has become of it? Can you get any body to tell you now that the people of a Territory have any authority to govern themselves, in regard to this mooted question of slavery, before they form a State Constitution? No such thing at all, although there is a general running fire, and although there has been a hurrah made in every speech on that side, assuming that policy had given the people of a Territory
the right to govern themselves upon this question; yet the point is dodged. To-day it has been decided​ —​ no more than a year ago it was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, as is insisted upon to-day, that the people of a Territory have no right to exclude slavery from a Territory, that if any one man chooses to take slaves into a Territory, all of the rest of the people have no right to keep them out. This being so, and this decision being made one of the points that the Judge approved, and one in the approval of which he says he means to keep me down​ —​ put me down I should not say, for I have never been up. He says he is in favor of it, and sticks to it, and expects to win his battle on that decision, which says that there is no such thing as Squatter Sovereignty; but that any one man may take slaves into a Territory, and all the other men in the Territory may be opposed to it, and yet by reason of the Constitution they can not prohibit it. When that is so, how much is left of this vast matter of Squatter Sovereignty I should like to know? [A voice​ —​ ‘It is all gone.’] “When we get back, we get to the point of the right of the people to make a Constitution. Kansas was settled, for example, in 1854. It was a Territory yet, without having formed a Constitution, in a very regular way, for three years. All this time negro slavery could be taken in by any few individuals, and by that decision of the Supreme Court, which the Judge approves, all the rest of the people can not keep it out; but when they come to make a Constitution they may say they will not have slavery. But it is there; they are obliged to tolerate it some way, and all experience shows it will be so​ —​ for they will not take negro slaves and absolutely deprive the owners of them. All experience shows this to be so. All that space of time that runs from the beginning of the settlement of the Territory until there is sufficiency of people to make a State Constitution​ —​ all that portion of time popular sovereignty is given up. The seal is absolutely put down upon it by the Court decision, and Judge Douglas puts his on the top of that, yet he is appealing to the
people to give him vast credit for his devotion to popular sovereignty. “Again, when we get to the question of the right of the people to form a State Constitution as they please, to form it with slavery or without slavery​ —​ if that is any thing new, I confess I don’t know it. Has there ever been a time when any body said that any other than the people of a Territory itself should form a Constitution? What is now in it that Judge Douglas should have fought several years of his life, and pledge himself to fight all the remaining years of his life for? Can Judge Douglas find any body on earth that said that any body else should form a Constitution for a people? [A voice, ‘Yes.’] Well, I should like you to name him; I should like to know who he was. [Same voice, ‘John Calhoun.’] “No, Sir, I never heard of even John Calhoun saying such a thing. He insisted on the same principle as Judge Douglas; but his mode of applying it in fact, was wrong. It is enough for my purpose to ask this crowd, when ever a Republican said any thing against it? They never said any thing against it, but they have constantly spoken for it; and whosoever will undertake to examine the platform, and the speeches of responsible men of the party, and of irresponsible men, too, if you please, will be unable to find one word from anybody in the Republican ranks, opposed to that Popular Sovereignty which Judge Douglas thinks that he has invented. I suppose that Judge Douglas will claim in a little while, that he is the inventor of the idea that the people should govern themselves; that nobody ever thought of such a thing until he brought it forward. We do remember, that in that old Declaration of Independence, it is said that ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’ There is the origin of the Popular
Sovereignty. Who, then, shall come in at this day and claim that he invented it”? After referring, in appropriate terms, to the credit claimed by Douglas for defeating the Lecompton policy, Mr. Lincoln proceeds: “I defy you to show a printed resolution passed in a Democratic meeting​ —​ I take it upon myself to defy any man to show a printed resolution of a Democratic meeting, large or small, in favor of Judge Trumbull, or any of the five to one Republican who beat the bill. Every thing must be for the Democrats! They did every thing, and the five to the one that really did the thing, they snub over, and they do not seem to remember that they have an existence upon the face of the earth. “Gentlemen, I fear that I shall become tedious. I leave this branch of the subject to take hold of another. I take up that part of Judge Douglas’s speech in which he respectfully attended to me. “Judge Douglas made two points upon my recent speech at Springfield. He says they are to be the issues of this campaign. The first one of these points he bases upon the language in a speech which I delivered at Springfield, which I believe I can quote correctly from memory. I said there that ‘we are now far on in the fifth year since a policy was instituted for the avowed object, and with the confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation; under the operation of that policy, that agitation had not only not ceased, but had constantly augmented. I believe it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. A house divided against itself can not stand. I believe this Government can not endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved’​ —​ I am quoting from my speech​ —​ ‘I do not expect the
house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will come all one thing or the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the 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 until it shall have become alike lawful in all the States, North as well as South.’ “In this paragraph which I have quoted in your hearing, and to which I ask the attention of all, Judge Douglas thinks he discovers great political heresy. I want your attention particularly to what he has inferred from it. He says I am in favor of making all the States of this Union uniform in all their internal regulations; that in all their domestic concerns I am in favor of making them entirely uniform. He draws this inference from the language I have quoted to you. He says that I am in favor of making war by the North upon the South for the extinction of slavery; that I am also in favor of inviting, as he expresses it, the South to a war upon the North, for the purpose of nationalizing slavery. Now, it is singular enough, if you will carefully read that passage over, that I did not say that I was in favor of any thing in it. I only said what I expected would take place. I made a prediction only​ —​ it may have been a foolish one perhaps. I did not even say that I desired that slavery should be put in course of ultimate extinction. I do say so now, however, so there need be no longer any difficulty about that. It may be written down in the next speech. “Gentlemen, Judge Douglas informed you that this speech of mine was probably carefully prepared. I admit that it was. I am not master of language; I have not a fine education; I am not capable of entering into a disquisition upon dialects, as I believe you call it; but I do not believe the language I employed bears any such construction as Judge Douglas puts upon it. But I don’t care about a quibble in regard to words. I know what I meant, and I will not leave this crowd in doubt, if I can explain it to them, what I really meant in the use of that paragraph.
“I am not, in the first place, unaware that this Government has endured eighty-two years, half slave and half free. I know that. I am tolerably well acquainted with the history of the country, and I know that it has endured eighty-two years, half slave and half free. I believe​ —​ and that is what I meant to allude to there​ —​ I believe it has endured, because during all that time, until the introduction of the Nebraska bill, the public mind did rest all the time in the belief that slavery was in course of ultimate extinction. That was what gave us the rest that we had through that period of eighty-two years; at least, so I believe. I have always hated slavery, I think, as much as any Abolitionist. I have been an Old Line Whig. I have always hated it, but I have always been quiet about it until this new era of the introduction of the Nebraska Bill began. I always believed that everybody was against it, and that it was in course of ultimate extinction. [Pointing to Mr. Browning, who stood near by:] Browning thought so; the great mass of the Nation have rested in the belief that slavery was in the course of ultimate extinction. They had reason so to believe. “The adoption of the Constitution and its attendant history led the people to believe so; and that such was the belief of the framers of the Constitution itself. Why did those old men, about the time of the adoption of the Constitution, decree that slavery should not go into the new territory, where it had not already gone? Why declare that within twenty years the African slave- trade, by which slaves are supplied, might be cut off by Congress? Why were all these acts? I might enumerate more of such acts​ —​ but enough. What were they but a clear indication that the framers of the Constitution intended and expected the ultimate extinction of that institution? And now, when I say, as I said in this speech that Judge Douglas has quoted from, when I say that I think the opponents of slavery will resist the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest with the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction, I only mean
to say, that they will place it where the founders of this Government originally placed it. “I have said a hundred times, and I have no inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free States to enter into the slave States, and to interfere with the question of slavery at all. I have said that always. Judge Douglas has heard me say it​ —​ if not quite a hundred times, at least as good as a hundred times; and when it is said that I am in favor of interfering with slavery where it exists, I know that it is unwarranted by any thing I have ever intended, and, as I believe, by any thing I have ever said. If, by any means, I have ever used language which could fairly be so construed (as, however, I believe I never have), I now correct it. “So much, then, for the inference that Judge Douglas draws, that I am in favor of setting the sections at war with one another. I know that I never meant any such thing, and I believe that no fair mind can infer any such thing from any thing I have ever said. “Now in relation to his inference that I am in favor of a general consolidation of all the local institutions of the various States. I will attend to that for a little while, and try to inquire, if I can, how on earth it could be that any man could draw such an inference from any thing I said. I have said, very many times, in Judge Douglas’s hearing, that no man believed more than I in the principle of self-government; that it lies at the bottom of all my ideas of just government, from beginning to end. I have denied that his use of that term applies properly. But for the thing itself, I deny that any man has ever gone ahead of me in his devotion to the principle, whatever he may have done in efficiency in advocating it. I think that I have said it in your hearing​ —​ that I believe each individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and with the fruit of his labor, so far as it in no wise interferes with any other man’s
rights​ —​ that each community, as a State, has a right to do exactly as it pleases with all the concerns within that State that interfere with the right of no other State, and that the General Government, upon principle, has no right to interfere with any thing other than that general class of things that does concern the whole. I have said that at all times. I have said as illustrations, that I do not believe in the right of Illinois to interfere with the cranberry laws of Indiana, the oyster laws of Virginia, or the liquor laws of Maine. I have said these things over and over again, and I repeat them here as my sentiments.... “So much then as to my disposition​ —​ my wish​ —​ to have all the State Legislatures blotted out, and to have one consolidated government, and a uniformity of domestic regulations in all the States; by which I suppose it is meant, if we raise corn here, we must make sugar-cane grow here too, and we must make those which grow North grow in the South. All this I suppose he understands I am in favor of doing. Now, so much for all this nonsense​ —​ for I must call it so. The Judge can have no issue with me on a question of established uniformity in the domestic regulations of the States. “A little now on the other point​ —​ the Dred Scott decision. Another of the issues he says that is to be made with me, is upon his devotion to the Dred Scott decision, and my opposition to it. “I have expressed heretofore, and I now repeat my opposition to the Dred Scott decision, but I should be allowed to state the nature of that opposition, and I ask your indulgence while I do so. What is fairly implied by the term Judge Douglas has used, ‘resistance to the decision?’ I do not resist it. If I wanted to take Dred Scott from his master, I would be interfering with property, and that terrible difficulty that Judge Douglas speaks of, of interfering with property would arise. But I am doing no such thing as that, but all that I am doing is
refusing to obey it as a political rule. If I were in Congress, and a vote should come up on a question whether slavery should be prohibited in a new Territory, in spite of the Dred Scott decision, I would vote that it should. “That is what I would do. Judge Douglas said last night, that before the decision he might advance his opinion, and it might be contrary to the decision when it was made; but after it was made he would abide by it until it was reversed. Just so! We let this property abide by the decision, but we will try to reverse that decision. [Loud applause.] We will try to put it where Judge Douglas will not object, for he says he will obey it until it is reversed. Some body has to reverse that decision, since it was made, and we mean to reverse it, and we mean to do it peaceably. “What are the uses of decisions of courts? They have two uses. As rules of property they have two uses. First​ —​ they decide upon the question before the court. They decide in this case that Dred Scott is a slave. Nobody resists that. Not only that, but they say to everybody else, that persons standing just as Dred Scott stands, is as he is. That is, they say that when a question comes up upon another person, it will be so decided again unless the court decides in another way, unless the court overrules its decision. Well, we mean to do what we can to have the court decide the other way. That is one thing we mean to try to do. “The sacredness that Judge Douglas throws around this decision, is a degree of sacredness that has never been before thrown around any other decision. I have never heard of such a thing. Why, decisions apparently contrary to that decision, or that good lawyers thought were contrary to that decision, have been made by that very court before. It is the first of the kind; it is an astonisher in legal history. It is a new wonder of the world. It is based upon falsehoods in the main as to the facts​ —​ allegation of facts upon which it stands are not facts at all in
many instances, and no decision made on any question​ —​ the first instance of a decision made under so many unfavorable circumstances​ —​ thus placed, has ever been held by the profession as law, and it has always needed confirmation before the lawyers regarded it as settled law. But Judge Douglas will have it that all hands must take this extraordinary decision, made under these extraordinary circumstances, and give their vote in Congress in accordance with it, yield to it and obey it in every possible sense. Circumstances alter cases. Do not gentlemen here remember the case of that same Supreme Court, twenty-five or thirty years ago, deciding that a National Bank was Constitutional? I ask, if somebody does not remember that a National Bank was declared to be Constitutional? Such is the truth, whether it be remembered or not. The Bank charter ran out, and a re-charter was granted by Congress. That re- charter was laid before General Jackson. It was urged upon him, when he denied the Constitutionality of the Bank, that the Supreme Court had decided that it was Constitutional; and that General Jackson then said that the Supreme Court had no right to lay down a rule to govern a co-ordinate branch of the Government, the members of which had sworn to support the Constitution​ —​ that each member had sworn to support that Constitution as he understood it. I will venture here to say, that I have heard Judge Douglas say that he approved of General Jackson for that act. What has now become of all his tirade about ‘resistance to the Supreme Court?’ * * * “We were often​ —​ more than once, at least​ —​ in the course of Judge Douglas’s speech last night, reminded that this Government was made for white men​ —​ that he believed it was made for white men. Well, that is putting it into a shape in which no one wants to deny it; but the Judge then goes into his passion for drawing inferences that are not warranted. I protest, now, and forever, against that counterfeit logic which presumes that because I did not want a negro woman for a slave, I do necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I need
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world, offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth. That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to self-development guides and children's books. More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and personal growth every day! ebookbell.com

More Related Content

PDF
Multiple Time Series Models 1st Edition Patrick T. Brandt
mrjxpzeloi184
 
PDF
Latent Growth Curve Modeling Kristopher J. Preacher
galyabedal3x
 
PDF
Multiple Time Series Models 1st Edition Patrick T. Brandt
mabenaulis8j
 
PDF
Differential Equations A Modeling Approach 1st Edition Courtney Brown
rzrfeniy3583
 
PDF
Multidimensional Item Response Theory 1st Edition Wes Bonifay
gindarakhixd
 
PDF
Introduction to Survey Sampling Second Edition Graham Kalton
maneynosmas
 
PDF
Differential Equations A Modeling Approach 1st Edition Courtney Brown
tannyagren2x
 
PDF
Fuzzy Set Theory Applications In The Social Sciences 1st Edition Michael Smit...
bapstyosan13
 
Multiple Time Series Models 1st Edition Patrick T. Brandt
mrjxpzeloi184
 
Latent Growth Curve Modeling Kristopher J. Preacher
galyabedal3x
 
Multiple Time Series Models 1st Edition Patrick T. Brandt
mabenaulis8j
 
Differential Equations A Modeling Approach 1st Edition Courtney Brown
rzrfeniy3583
 
Multidimensional Item Response Theory 1st Edition Wes Bonifay
gindarakhixd
 
Introduction to Survey Sampling Second Edition Graham Kalton
maneynosmas
 
Differential Equations A Modeling Approach 1st Edition Courtney Brown
tannyagren2x
 
Fuzzy Set Theory Applications In The Social Sciences 1st Edition Michael Smit...
bapstyosan13
 

Similar to Multiple Time Series Models 1st Edition Patrick T Brandt John T Williams (20)

PDF
Multilevel Structural Equation Modeling Bruno Castanho Silva Constantin Manue...
tortezhanger
 
PDF
Multidimensional Item Response Theory 1st Edition Wes Bonifay
supperqolani
 
PDF
Social Network Analysis David Knoke Song Yang
tortezhanger
 
PDF
Introduction to Survey Sampling Second Edition Graham Kalton
mhbbdoci
 
PDF
Understanding Regression Analysis An Introductory Guide Larry D Schroeder Dav...
tortezhanger
 
PDF
Understanding Correlation Matrices Alexandria R Hadd Joseph Lee Rodgers
emjzixian
 
PDF
Confirmatory Factor Analysis J Micah Roos Shawn Bauldry
tortezhanger
 
PDF
Logistic Regression A Primer Fred C Pampel
tortezhanger
 
PDF
Exploratory Factor Analysis W Holmes Finch
tortezhanger
 
PDF
Multilevel Analysis Techniques And Applications Second Edition 2nd Edition Jo...
toiatiefis
 
PDF
Multilevel Analysis Techniques and Applications Second Edition Joop Hox
neanbiolla
 
PDF
Ergodic Control Of Diffusion Processes 1st Edition Ari Arapostathis
jaksomendene
 
PDF
Statistical Analysis Of Stochastic Processes In Time 1st Edition J K Lindsey
rasabigley
 
PDF
Multilevel Analysis Techniques and Applications Second Edition Joop Hox
genincieroyu
 
PDF
Principles Of Real Analysis 2nd Edition S C Malik
mruniker
 
PDF
Introduction To Empirical Processes And Semiparametric Inference 1st Edition ...
shebaminonqa
 
PDF
Boolean Models And Methods In Mathematics Computer Science And Engineering 1s...
flathaaliah80
 
PDF
Multiplicative number theory i.classical theory cambridge
Manuel Jesùs Saavedra Jimènez
 
PDF
Linear Mixed Models For Longitudinal Data 1997 Corr 2nd Geert Verbeke
celajkeayszp
 
PDF
Optimal Inventory Modeling Of Systems Multiechelon Techniques 2nd Edition Cra...
bqtzhzx344
 
Multilevel Structural Equation Modeling Bruno Castanho Silva Constantin Manue...
tortezhanger
 
Multidimensional Item Response Theory 1st Edition Wes Bonifay
supperqolani
 
Social Network Analysis David Knoke Song Yang
tortezhanger
 
Introduction to Survey Sampling Second Edition Graham Kalton
mhbbdoci
 
Understanding Regression Analysis An Introductory Guide Larry D Schroeder Dav...
tortezhanger
 
Understanding Correlation Matrices Alexandria R Hadd Joseph Lee Rodgers
emjzixian
 
Confirmatory Factor Analysis J Micah Roos Shawn Bauldry
tortezhanger
 
Logistic Regression A Primer Fred C Pampel
tortezhanger
 
Exploratory Factor Analysis W Holmes Finch
tortezhanger
 
Multilevel Analysis Techniques And Applications Second Edition 2nd Edition Jo...
toiatiefis
 
Multilevel Analysis Techniques and Applications Second Edition Joop Hox
neanbiolla
 
Ergodic Control Of Diffusion Processes 1st Edition Ari Arapostathis
jaksomendene
 
Statistical Analysis Of Stochastic Processes In Time 1st Edition J K Lindsey
rasabigley
 
Multilevel Analysis Techniques and Applications Second Edition Joop Hox
genincieroyu
 
Principles Of Real Analysis 2nd Edition S C Malik
mruniker
 
Introduction To Empirical Processes And Semiparametric Inference 1st Edition ...
shebaminonqa
 
Boolean Models And Methods In Mathematics Computer Science And Engineering 1s...
flathaaliah80
 
Multiplicative number theory i.classical theory cambridge
Manuel Jesùs Saavedra Jimènez
 
Linear Mixed Models For Longitudinal Data 1997 Corr 2nd Geert Verbeke
celajkeayszp
 
Optimal Inventory Modeling Of Systems Multiechelon Techniques 2nd Edition Cra...
bqtzhzx344
 
Ad

Recently uploaded (20)

PPTX
Introduction to pro and eukaryotes and differences.pptx
AvaniKarumathil
 
PDF
LIFE & LIVING TRILOGY - PART (3) REALITY & MYSTERY.pdf
sureshkumarsoni26
 
PDF
David L Page_DCI Research Study Journey_how Methodology can inform one's prac...
David L Page
 
PDF
Journal of Dental Science - UDMY (2021).pdf
Nay Aung
 
PPTX
A powerpoint presentation on the Revised K-10 Science Shaping Paper
JericEstaco2
 
PDF
My India Quiz Book_20210205121199924.pdf
AtandraDey2
 
PDF
Race Reva University – Shaping Future Leaders in Artificial Intelligence
RACE REVA University
 
PPTX
Virtual and Augmented Reality in Current Scenario
Shruti Dalela
 
PDF
HVAC Specification 2024 according to central public works department
amitrobanipl
 
PDF
BP 704 T. NOVEL DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEMS (UNIT 2).pdf
CMEmpire
 
PPTX
Education and Perspectives of Education.pptx
Central University of South Bihar, Gaya, Bihar
 
PDF
FOISHS ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2025.pdf
EllenJoyCaniya2
 
PDF
Skin Care and Cosmetic Ingredients Dictionary ( PDFDrive ).pdf
SahianAlondraPichard
 
PPTX
Computer Architecture Input Output Memory.pptx
Gunasundari Selvaraj
 
PDF
FORM 1 BIOLOGY MIND MAPS and their schemes
arcade5
 
PDF
BP 505 T. PHARMACEUTICAL JURISPRUDENCE (UNIT 1).pdf
CMEmpire
 
PDF
Paper A Mock Exam 9_ Attempt review.pdf.
SameeraNaveed2
 
PDF
Uderstanding digital marketing and marketing stratergie for engaging the digi...
afreenpeshmam
 
PDF
International_Financial_Reporting_Standa.pdf
VrindaTayade1
 
PPTX
Core Concepts of Personalized Learning and Virtual Learning Environments
Dr. Bushra Sumaiya
 
Introduction to pro and eukaryotes and differences.pptx
AvaniKarumathil
 
LIFE & LIVING TRILOGY - PART (3) REALITY & MYSTERY.pdf
sureshkumarsoni26
 
David L Page_DCI Research Study Journey_how Methodology can inform one's prac...
David L Page
 
Journal of Dental Science - UDMY (2021).pdf
Nay Aung
 
A powerpoint presentation on the Revised K-10 Science Shaping Paper
JericEstaco2
 
My India Quiz Book_20210205121199924.pdf
AtandraDey2
 
Race Reva University – Shaping Future Leaders in Artificial Intelligence
RACE REVA University
 
Virtual and Augmented Reality in Current Scenario
Shruti Dalela
 
HVAC Specification 2024 according to central public works department
amitrobanipl
 
BP 704 T. NOVEL DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEMS (UNIT 2).pdf
CMEmpire
 
Education and Perspectives of Education.pptx
Central University of South Bihar, Gaya, Bihar
 
FOISHS ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2025.pdf
EllenJoyCaniya2
 
Skin Care and Cosmetic Ingredients Dictionary ( PDFDrive ).pdf
SahianAlondraPichard
 
Computer Architecture Input Output Memory.pptx
Gunasundari Selvaraj
 
FORM 1 BIOLOGY MIND MAPS and their schemes
arcade5
 
BP 505 T. PHARMACEUTICAL JURISPRUDENCE (UNIT 1).pdf
CMEmpire
 
Paper A Mock Exam 9_ Attempt review.pdf.
SameeraNaveed2
 
Uderstanding digital marketing and marketing stratergie for engaging the digi...
afreenpeshmam
 
International_Financial_Reporting_Standa.pdf
VrindaTayade1
 
Core Concepts of Personalized Learning and Virtual Learning Environments
Dr. Bushra Sumaiya
 
Ad

Multiple Time Series Models 1st Edition Patrick T Brandt John T Williams

  • 1. Multiple Time Series Models 1st Edition Patrick T Brandt John T Williams download https://ebookbell.com/product/multiple-time-series-models-1st- edition-patrick-t-brandt-john-t-williams-1901590 Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com
  • 2. Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be interested in. You can click the link to download. Multiple Time Series Modeling Using The Sas Varmax Procedure Anders Milhj https://ebookbell.com/product/multiple-time-series-modeling-using-the- sas-varmax-procedure-anders-milhj-7037532 Multiple Time Series Modeling Using The Sas Varmax Procedure Anders Milhoj https://ebookbell.com/product/multiple-time-series-modeling-using-the- sas-varmax-procedure-anders-milhoj-7026754 New Introduction To Multiple Time Series Analysis 3rd Edition Helmut Ltkepohl https://ebookbell.com/product/new-introduction-to-multiple-time- series-analysis-3rd-edition-helmut-ltkepohl-47165998 Characterizing Interdependencies Of Multiple Time Series Theory And Applications 1st Edition Yuzo Hosoya https://ebookbell.com/product/characterizing-interdependencies-of- multiple-time-series-theory-and-applications-1st-edition-yuzo- hosoya-6793324
  • 3. New Introduction To Multiple Time Series Analysis Helmut Ltkepohl https://ebookbell.com/product/new-introduction-to-multiple-time- series-analysis-helmut-ltkepohl-1068716 New Introduction To Multiple Time Series Analysis Helmut Ltkepohl https://ebookbell.com/product/new-introduction-to-multiple-time- series-analysis-helmut-ltkepohl-11104534 New Introduction To Multiple Time Series Analysis Helmut Ltkepohl https://ebookbell.com/product/new-introduction-to-multiple-time- series-analysis-helmut-ltkepohl-59042124 Multipletimescale Dynamical Systems 1st Edition Amadeu Delshams https://ebookbell.com/product/multipletimescale-dynamical-systems-1st- edition-amadeu-delshams-4210092 Multiple Time Scale Dynamics 1st Edition Christian Kuehn Auth https://ebookbell.com/product/multiple-time-scale-dynamics-1st- edition-christian-kuehn-auth-5032654
  • 6. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences A S AG E P U B L I C AT I O N S S E R I E S 1. Analysis of Variance, 2nd Edition Iversen/ Norpoth 2. Operations Research Methods Nagel/Neef 3. Causal Modeling, 2nd Edition Asher 4. Tests of Significance Henkel 5. Cohort Analysis, 2nd Edition Glenn 6. Canonical Analysis and Factor Comparison Levine 7. Analysis of Nominal Data, 2nd Edition Reynolds 8. Analysis of Ordinal Data Hildebrand/Laing/Rosenthal 9. Time Series Analysis, 2nd Edition Ostrom 10. Ecological Inference Langbein/Lichtman 11. Multidimensional Scaling Kruskal/Wish 12. Analysis of Covariance Wildt/Ahtola 13. Introduction to Factor Analysis Kim/Mueller 14. Factor Analysis Kim/Mueller 15. Multiple Indicators Sullivan/Feldman 16. Exploratory Data Analysis Hartwig/Dearing 17. Reliability and Validity Assessment Carmines/Zeller 18. Analyzing Panel Data Markus 19. Discriminant Analysis Klecka 20. Log-Linear Models Knoke/Burke 21. Interrupted Time Series Analysis McDowall/McCleary/Meidinger/Hay 22. Applied Regression Lewis-Beck 23. Research Designs Spector 24. Unidimensional Scaling McIver/Carmines 25. Magnitude Scaling Lodge 26. Multiattribute Evaluation Edwards/Newman 27. Dynamic Modeling Huckfeldt/Kohfeld/Likens 28. Network Analysis Knoke/Kuklinski 29. Interpreting and Using Regression Achen 30. Test Item Bias Osterlind 31. Mobility Tables Hout 32. Measures of Association Liebetrau 33. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Long 34. Covariance Structure Models Long 35. Introduction to Survey Sampling Kalton 36. Achievement Testing Bejar 37. Nonrecursive Causal Models Berry 38. Matrix Algebra Namboodiri 39. Introduction to Applied Demography Rives/Serow 40. Microcomputer Methods for Social Scientists, 2nd Edition Schrodt 41. Game Theory Zagare 42. Using Published Data Jacob 43. Bayesian Statistical Inference Iversen 44. Cluster Analysis Aldenderfer/Blashfield 45. Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit Models Aldrich/Nelson 46. Event History Analysis Allison 47. Canonical Correlation Analysis Thompson 48. Models for Innovation Diffusion Mahajan/ Peterson 49. Basic Content Analysis, 2nd Edition Weber 50. Multiple Regression in Practice Berry/ Feldman 51. Stochastic Parameter Regression Models Newbold/Bos 52. Using Microcomputers in Research Madron/Tate/Brookshire 53. Secondary Analysis of Survey Data Kiecolt/Nathan 54. Multivariate Analysis of Variance Bray/Maxwell 55. The Logic of Causal Order Davis 56. Introduction to Linear Goal Programming Ignizio 57. Understanding Regression Analysis Schroeder/Sjoquist/Stephan 58. Randomized Response Fox/Tracy 59. Meta-Analysis Wolf 60. Linear Programming Feiring 61. Multiple Comparisons Klockars/Sax 62. Information Theory Krippendorff 63. Survey Questions Converse/Presser 64. Latent Class Analysis McCutcheon 65. Three-Way Scaling and Clustering Arabie/Carroll/DeSarbo 66. Q Methodology McKeown/Thomas 67. Analyzing Decision Making Louviere 68. Rasch Models for Measurement Andrich 69. Principal Components Analysis Dunteman 70. Pooled Time Series Analysis Sayrs 71. Analyzing Complex Survey Data, 2nd Edition Lee/Forthofer 72. Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression, 2nd Edition Jaccard/Turrisi 73. Understanding Significance Testing Mohr 74. Experimental Design and Analysis Brown/ Melamed 75. Metric Scaling Weller/Romney 76. Longitudinal Research, 2nd Edition Menard 77. Expert Systems Benfer/Brent/Furbee 78. Data Theory and Dimensional Analysis Jacoby 79. Regression Diagnostics Fox 80. Computer-Assisted Interviewing Saris 81. Contextual Analysis Iversen 82. Summated Rating Scale Construction Spector 83. Central Tendency and Variability Weisberg 84. ANOVA: Repeated Measures Girden 85. Processing Data Bourque/Clark 86. Logit Modeling DeMaris
  • 7. 87. Analytic Mapping and Geographic Databases Garson/Biggs 88. Working With Archival Data Elder/Pavalko/Clipp 89. Multiple Comparison Procedures Toothaker 90. Nonparametric Statistics Gibbons 91. Nonparametric Measures of Association Gibbons 92. Understanding Regression Assumptions Berry 93. Regression With Dummy Variables Hardy 94. Loglinear Models With Latent Variables Hagenaars 95. Bootstrapping Mooney/Duval 96. Maximum Likelihood Estimation Eliason 97. Ordinal Log-Linear Models Ishii-Kuntz 98. Random Factors in ANOVA Jackson/ Brashers 99. Univariate Tests for Time Series Models Cromwell/Labys/Terraza 100. Multivariate Tests for Time Series Models Cromwell/Hannan/Labys/Terraza 101. Interpreting Probability Models: Logit, Probit, and Other Generalized Linear Models Liao 102. Typologies and Taxonomies Bailey 103. Data Analysis: An Introduction Lewis-Beck 104. Multiple Attribute Decision Making Yoon/Hwang 105. Causal Analysis With Panel Data Finkel 106. Applied Logistic Regression Analysis, 2nd Edition Menard 107. Chaos and Catastrophe Theories Brown 108. Basic Math for Social Scientists: Concepts Hagle 109. Basic Math for Social Scientists: Problems and Solutions Hagle 110. Calculus Iversen 111. Regression Models: Censored, Sample Selected, or Truncated Data Breen 112. Tree Models of Similarity and Association James E. Corter 113. Computational Modeling Taber/Timpone 114. LISREL Approaches to Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression Jaccard/Wan 115. Analyzing Repeated Surveys Firebaugh 116. Monte Carlo Simulation Mooney 117. Statistical Graphics for Univariate and Bivariate Data Jacoby 118. Interaction Effects in Factorial Analysis of Variance Jaccard 119. Odds Ratios in the Analysis of Contingency Tables Rudas 120. Statistical Graphics for Visualizing Multivariate Data Jacoby 121. Applied Correspondence Analysis Clausen 122. Game Theory Topics Fink/Gates/Humes 123. Social Choice: Theory and Research Johnson 124. Neural Networks Abdi/Valentin/Edelman 125. Relating Statistics and Experimental Design: An Introduction Levin 126. Latent Class Scaling Analysis Dayton 127. Sorting Data: Collection and Analysis Coxon 128. Analyzing Documentary Accounts Hodson 129. Effect Size for ANOVA Designs Cortina/Nouri 130. Nonparametric Simple Regression: Smoothing Scatterplots Fox 131. Multiple and Generalized Nonparametric Regression Fox 132. Logistic Regression: A Primer Pampel 133. Translating Questionnaires and Other Research Instruments: Problems and Solutions Behling/Law 134. Generalized Linear Models: A United Approach Gill 135. Interaction Effects in Logistic Regression Jaccard 136. Missing Data Allison 137. Spline Regression Models Marsh/Cormier 138. Logit and Probit: Ordered and Multinomial Models Borooah 139. Correlation: Parametric and Nonparametric Measures Chen/Popovich 140. Confidence Intervals Smithson 141. Internet Data Collection Best/Krueger 142. Probability Theory Rudas 143. Multilevel Modeling Luke 144. Polytomous Item Response Theory Models Ostini/Nering 145. An Introduction to Generalized Linear Models Dunteman/Ho 146. Logistic Regression Models for Ordinal Response Variables O’Connell 147. Fuzzy Set Theory: Applications in the Social Sciences Smithson/Verkuilen 148. Multiple Time Series Models Brandt/Williams Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences A S AG E P U B L I C AT I O N S S E R I E S
  • 8. Series/Number 07–148 MULTIPLE TIME SERIES MODELS Patrick T. Brandt University of Texas at Dallas John T. Williams University of California, Riverside
  • 9. Copyright Ó 2007 by Sage Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. For information: Sage Publications, Inc. 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, California 91320 E-mail: order@sagepub.com Sage Publications Ltd. 1 Oliver’s Yard 55 City Road London EC1Y 1SP United Kingdom Sage Publications India Pvt. Ltd. B-42, Panchsheel Enclave Post Box 4109 New Delhi 110 017 India Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Brandt, Patrick T. Multiple time series models / Patrick T. Brandt, John T. Williams. p. cm. — (Quantitative applications in the social sciences, vol. 148) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-4129-0656-3; 978-1-4129-0656-2 (pbk.) 1. Times series analysis—Mathematical models. I. Williams, John T. II. Title. III. Series: Sage university papers series. Quantitative applications in the social sciences. HA30.3.B73 2007 519.55—dc22 2006010016 This book is printed on acid-free paper. 05 06 07 08 09 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Acquisitions Editor: Lisa Cuevas Shaw Associate Editor: Margo Beth Crouppen Editorial Assistant: Karen Greene Production Editor: Melanie Birdsall Copy Editor: QuADS Prepress (P) Ltd. Typesetter: CM Digitals (P) Ltd Indexer: Ellen Slavitz Cover Designer: Janet Foulger
  • 10. CONTENTS List of Figures vii List of Tables viii Series Editor’s Introduction ix Preface xi 1. Introduction to Multiple Time Series Models 1 1.1 Simultaneous Equation Approach 4 1.2 ARIMA Approach 6 1.3 Error Correction or LSE Approach 7 1.4 Vector Autoregression Approach 9 1.5 Comparison and Summary 12 2. Basic Vector Autoregression Models 14 2.1 Dynamic Structural Equation Models 15 2.2 Reduced Form Vector Autoregressions 18 2.3 Relationship of a Dynamic Structural Equation Model to a Vector Autoregression Model 20 2.4 Working With This Model 22 2.5 Specification and Analysis of VAR Models 23 2.5.1 Estimation of VAR 24 2.5.2 Lag Length Specification 24 2.5.3 Testing Serial Correlation in the Residuals 28 2.5.4 Granger Causality 32 2.5.5 Interpreting Granger Causality 34 2.5.6 Testing Other Restrictions in a VAR Model 36 2.5.7 Impulse Response and Moving Average Response Analysis 36 2.5.8 Error Bands for Impulse Responses 41 2.5.9 Innovation Accounting or Decomposition of Forecast Error Variance 45 2.6 Other Specification Issues 48 2.6.1 Should Differencing Be Used for Trending Data? 49 2.6.2 Data Transformations and Whitening 49
  • 11. 2.7 Unit Roots and Error Correction in VARs 50 2.7.1 Error Correction Representation of Unit Root Data 50 2.7.2 Error Correction as a VAR Model 52 2.7.3 VAR Versus VECM (ECM) 54 2.8 Criticisms of VAR 56 3. Examples of VAR Analyses 59 3.1 Public Mood and Macropartisanship 59 3.1.1 Testing for Unit Roots 61 3.1.2 Specifying the Lag Length 62 3.1.3 Estimation of the VAR 63 3.1.4 Granger Causality Testing 65 3.1.5 Decomposition of the Forecast Error Variance 66 3.1.6 Impulse Response Analysis 68 3.2 Effective Corporate Tax Rates 71 3.2.1 Data 72 3.2.2 Testing for Unit Roots 73 3.2.3 Specifying the Lag Length 73 3.2.4 Granger Causality Testing 74 3.2.5 Impulse Response Analysis 77 3.2.6 Decomposition of the Forecast Error Variance 79 3.2.7 A Further Robustness Check 81 3.3 Conclusion 82 Appendix: Software for Multiple Time Series Models 85 Notes 89 References 92 Index 96 About the Authors 99
  • 12. LIST OF FIGURES 3.1 Quarterly Macropartisanship and Public Mood, 1958:4–1996:4 60 3.2 Impulse Response Analysis for Macropartisanship and Public Mood 68 3.3 Impulse Response Analysis for Macropartisanship and Public Mood 70 3.4 ECTR Data 72 3.5 Moving Average Responses for Four-Variable VAR With 90% Error Bands, 1977–1994 79 3.6 Moving Average Responses for Four-Variable VAR With 90% Error Bands, 1953–1994 83 vii
  • 13. LIST OF TABLES 1.1 Comparison of Time Series Modeling Approaches 13 3.1 Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test Results 62 3.2 AIC and BIC Values for Macropartisanship and Public Mood VAR 63 3.3 Likelihood Ratio Tests for Lag Length 64 3.4 VAR Estimates for the 1-Lag Model of Public Mood and Macropartisanship 64 3.5 Granger Causality Tests for Public Mood and Macropartisanship Based on the VAR(1) Model 65 3.6 Decomposition of the Forecast Error Variance for the VAR(2) Model of Public Mood and Macropartisanship 67 3.7 Unit Root Tests for ECTR Example Variables 73 3.8 AIC and BIC Lag Length Diagnostics for the ECTR VAR Model 74 3.9 Likelihood Ratio Tests for Lag Length 75 3.10 Exogeneity Tests for ECTR and Corporate Political Action Committees, 1977–1994 76 3.11 Exogeneity Tests for ECTR, Real Investment, and Real Income: 1953–1994, 1960–1994, 1977–1994 77 3.12 Decomposition of Error Variance for VAR 80 viii
  • 14. SERIES EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION Social and economic scientists have long been fascinated by and taken advantage of time series data. A first systematic exploitation of the richness of such data is William Playfair’s The Commercial and Political Atlas, pub- lished 220 years ago and containing 43 time series graphs. By plotting the national debt of England against time, for example, Playfair could easily identify the impact of major historical events such as the accession of Queen Anne in 1701, the Spanish War of the 1730s, and the American (Revolutionary) War that began in 1775. Playfair also used graphs with more than one time series. The graph below charts the curve of imports and that of the exports against time, clearly demonstrating that there is a relationship between the two as well as between them and time, not to mention the main purpose of Playfair’s defining import-export balance against and in favor of England. Charts like this show that the two time series may not be independent processes. The usefulness of time series graphs notwithstanding, Playfair’s presen- tation leaves many questions unanswered. What caused imports or exports to rise and fall? Did the amount of imports have an impact on the amount of s t r o p m I f o e n i L s t r o p x E f o e n i L s t r o p m I s t r o p x E 1700 1710 1720 1730 1740 1750 1760 1770 1780 BALANCE in FAVOR of ENGLAND 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100,000 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 Exports and Imports To and From Denmark and Norway From 1700 to 1780 The bottom line is divided into years, the right-hand line into £10,000 each. BALANCE AGAINST SOURCE: www.unc.edu/~nielsen/soci208/m2/m2033.jpg ix
  • 15. exports and vice versa? Perhaps most important and interesting, what changed the regime of import-export balance from against to in favor of England? Answering these questions requires a proper analysis of the dynamic simultaneous processes, and Brandt and Williams’s Multiple Time Series Models, seen by my predecessor Michael Lewis-Beck as a worth- while project, presents methods for such analyses. The authors discuss the assumptions and specificities of four main approaches for time series data: autoregressive integrated moving average models, simultaneous equation systems, error correction models, and vec- tor autoregression (VAR) models. They then focus on the details such as the specification and estimation of inference in VAR as well as tests for Granger causality and assessment of dynamic causal relationships via impulse response functions and measures of uncertainty before offering two complete examples of the VAR model of multiple time series data. A welcome addition to the series, this book complements the existing volumes of Time Series Analysis (No. 9), Univariate Tests for Time Series Models (No. 99), and Multivariate Tests for Time Series Models (No. 100). —Tim Futing Liao Series Editor x
  • 16. PREFACE About This Book This project is several years in the making. John first proposed writing this book to me in 1999 when he was teaching time series analysis and I was his teaching assistant at the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) Summer Program at the University of Michi- gan. The project sat idle until John revived the idea in 2002—although we had discussed it in the interim. Regrettably, John passed away in September 2004 while we were work- ing on this book. Prior to this tragic event, we had actually completed a fair amount of the outline and plan for the book. John’s influence pervades this book—from the way the ideas are presented to the general outlook of how to ‘‘do’’ multiple time series analysis. I have tried to stay as close as possi- ble to the original conception of the project that John and I devised. I have been aided by a series of notes that were found in John’s files. In 1994 and 1995, John did a series of lectures on vector autoregression and multiple time series models, at, among other places, the ICPSR Summer Program. Ken Bickers, Shaun Bowler, Mike McGinnis, and Matthew Potoski thankfully were able to recover these notes from his files. Regretta- bly, though, they had never been updated, so they only reflected the ‘‘state of the art’’ circa 1994. In addition, several important topics were missing from these notes, including a discussion of error correction models (Sec- tions 1.3 and 2.7), new results on Granger causality testing (Section 2.5.4), and probability assessment methods for impulse responses (Section 2.5.8). In addition, the notes included only bullet points for the discussion in Chap- ter 1, not the full discussion included herein. John and I have incurred a number of debts in the course of writing this book. We would first like to thank our friend, coauthor, and collaborator John Freeman for his steadfast role as a supporter and commentator for both of us over the years. We owe a debt of gratitude to our original Sage series editor, Michael Lewis-Beck, who worked with us to define the project and get it accepted by Sage. The current series editor, Tim Liao, has been espe- cially helpful as I have worked to complete the book. I would like to thank the University of North Texas and its Political Science Department, which were my home when I started this project. Ken Bickers, Mike McGinnis, and Matthew Potoski also deserve special thanks for sorting out John’s files and finding his notes on these topics. Without these files, completing the manuscript would have taken much longer. I am also indebted to the many xi
  • 17. students to whom John taught this material over the years at Indiana and the ICPSR Summer Program at the University of Michigan. I wish I could list all of you here, because I know how much John meant to you and you to him. Thanks are also due to Hank Heitoweit for inviting John to teach some of this material at the ICPSR Summer Program over the years and inviting me to be a teaching assistant for John’s time series course in 1999. I also thank Harold Clarke, who provided a wonderful two-day forum where I could try out this material in front of a great audience of his (and my now current) colleagues and students in the fall of 2004. Mike Colaresi (one of John’s former students and a friend) discussed some of John’s general approach to time series with me, reminded me of some key ideas, and pro- vided a critical reading of the manuscript. Finally, Justin Appleby, Mehmet Gurses, Thomas Sattler, Patrick Sellers, and Chu-Ping Vijverberg provided helpful feedback on the nearly completed manuscript. Background Material and Plan of the Book This book covers advanced topics in the analysis of multiple time series. By multiple time series, we mean time-ordered data where there is more than one (endogenous) variable of interest. For example, if one were to model the determinants of the percentage of Americans who claim to be Democrats (known as aggregate partisanship), an important explanatory factor might be the general public support for the policies of the U.S. gov- ernment. But support for these policies will be colored by the same aggre- gate partisanship of the general public. Some of the relationships among these variables can be described by recent history (past values), whereas other aspects depend on contemporaneously related factors. Thus, one needs to consider models that allow for endogenous, dynamic relationships between these two variables. This book is about describing and making informed inferences about such endogenous, dynamic relationships. This book assumes a certain basic facility with several topics. First, we assume a basic knowledge of matrix algebra and the representation of sys- tems of equations using matrices. Second, we assume a working (and likely good) understanding of general linear regression models. Finally, we assume the reader is familiar with or can consult a basic text on univariate time series analysis such as Harvey (1990), Mills (1991), or Ostrom (1990). The basic plan of this book is as follows. We first address the philosophi- cal and methodological choices in the specification of multiple time series models. This begins with a treatment of (dynamic) simultaneous equations and univariate time series models. Our goal in this discussion is to illumi- nate the trade-offs implicit in different specification and identification assumptions. We then discuss how different time series models and xii
  • 18. Random documents with unrelated content Scribd suggests to you:
  • 19. “To this Gen. Cass is reported to have replied as follows, to wit: “Mr. Cass said, that the course of the Senator from New Jersey was most extraordinary. Last year he (Mr. Cass) should have voted for the proposition had it come up. But circumstances had altogether changed. The honorable Senator then read several passages from the remarks as given above, which he had committed to writing, in order to refute such a charge as that of the Senator from New Jersey.’ “In the ‘remarks above committed to writing,’ is one numbered 4, as follows, to wit: “‘4th. Legislation would now be wholly imperative, because no territory hereafter to be acquired can be governed without an act of Congress providing for its government. And such an act, on its passage, would open the whole subject, and leave the Congress, called on to pass it, free to exercise its own discretion, entirely uncontrolled by any declaration found in the statute book.’ “In Niles’ Register, vol. 73, page 293, there is a letter of General Cass to A. O. P. Nicholson, of Nashville, Tennessee dated December 24, 1847, from which the following are correct extracts: “‘The Wilmot Proviso has been before the country some time. It has been repeatedly discussed in Congress, and by the public press. I am strongly impressed with the opinion that a great change has been going on in the public mind upon this subject​ —​ in my own as well as others; and that doubts are resolving themselves into convictions, that the principle it involves should be kept out of the National Legislature, and left to the people of the Confederacy in their respective local Governments. “‘Briefly, then, I am opposed to the exercise of any jurisdiction by Congress over this matter; and I am in favor of
  • 20. leaving the people of any territory which may be hereafter acquired, the right to regulate it themselves, under the general principles of the Constitution. Because, “‘1. I do not see in the Constitution any grant of the requisite power to Congress; and I am not disposed to extend a doubtful precedent beyond its necessity​ —​ the establishment of territorial governments when needed​ —​ leaving to the inhabitants all the rights compatible with the relations they bear to the Confederation.’ “These extracts show that, in 1846, General Cass was for the Proviso at once; that, in March, 1847, he was still for it, but not just then; and that in December, 1847, he was against it altogether. This is a true index to the whole man. When the question was raised in 1846, he was in a blustering hurry to take ground for it. He sought to be in advance, and to avoid the uninteresting position of a mere follower, but soon he began to see glimpses of the great Democratic ox-gad waving in his face, and to hear indistinctly, a voice saying, ‘back,’ ‘back, sir,’ ‘back a little.’ He shakes his head and bats his eyes, and blunders back to his position of March, 1847; but still the gad waves, and the voice grows more distinct, and sharper still​ —​ ‘back, sir!’ ‘back, I say!’ ‘further back!’ and back he goes to the position of December, 1847; at which the gad is still, and the voice soothingly says​ —​ ‘So!’ ‘Stand still at that.’ “Have no fears, gentlemen, of your candidate; he exactly suits you, and we congratulate you upon it. However much you may be distressed about our candidate, you have all cause to be contented and happy with your own. If elected, he may not maintain all, or even any of his positions previously taken; but he will be sure to do whatever the party exigency, for the time being, may require; and that is precisely what you want. He and Van Buren are the same ‘manner of men;’ and like Van Buren, he will never desert you till you first desert him.”
  • 21. After referring at some length to extra “charges” of General Cass upon the Treasury, Mr. Lincoln continued:​ —​ “But I have introduced General Cass’s accounts here, chiefly to show the wonderful physical capacities of the man. They show that he not only did the labor of several men at the same time, but that he often did it, at several places many hundred miles apart, at the same time. And at eating, too, his capacities are shown to be quite as wonderful. From October, 1821, to May, 1822, he ate ten rations a day in Michigan, ten rations a day here, in Washington, and nearly five dollar’s worth a day besides, partly on the road between the two places. And then there is an important discovery in his example​ —​ the art of being paid for what one eats, instead of having to pay for it. Hereafter, if any nice young man shall owe a bill which he can not pay in any other way, he can just board it out. Mr. Speaker, we have all heard of the animal standing in doubt between two stacks of hay, and starving to death; the like of that would never happen to General Cass. Place the stacks a thousand miles apart, he would stand stock-still, midway between them, and eat them both at once; and the green grass along the line would be apt to suffer some too, at the same time. By all means make him President, gentlemen. He will feed you bounteously​ —​ if if​ —​ there is any left after he shall have helped himself. “But as General Taylor, is, par excellence, the hero of the Mexican war; and, as you Democrats say we Whigs have always opposed the war, you think it must be very awkward and embarrassing for us to go for General Taylor. The declaration that we have always opposed the war, is true or false accordingly as one may understand the term ‘opposing the war.’ If to say ‘the war was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President,’ be opposing the war, then the Whigs have very generally opposed it. Whenever they have spoken at all, they have said this; and they have said it on what
  • 22. has appeared good reason to them: The marching an army into the midst of a peaceful Mexican settlement, frightening the inhabitants away, leaving their growing crops and other property to destruction, to you may appear a perfectly amiable, peaceful, unprovoking procedure; but it does not appear so to us. So to call such an act, to us appears no other than a naked, impudent absurdity, and we speak of it accordingly. But if, when the war had begun, and had become the cause of the country, the giving of our money and our blood, in common with yours, was support of the war, then it is not true that we have always opposed the war. With few individual exceptions, you have constantly had our votes here for all the necessary supplies. And, more than this, you have had the services, the blood, and the lives of our political brethren in every trial, and on every field. The beardless boy and the mature man​ —​ the humble and the distinguished, you have had them. Through suffering and death, by disease and in battle, they have endured, and fought, and fallen with you. Clay and Webster each gave a son, never to be returned. From the State of my own residence, besides other worthy but less known Whig names, we sent Marshall, Morrison, Baker, and Hardin; they all fought, and one fell, and in the fall of that one, we lost our best Whig man. Nor were the Whigs few in number, or laggard in the day of danger. In that fearful, bloody, breathless struggle at Buena Vista, where each man’s hard task was to beat back five foes, or die himself, of the five high officers who perished, four were Whigs. “In speaking of this, I mean no odious comparison between the lion-hearted Whigs and Democrats who fought there. On other occasions, and among the lower officers and privates on that occasion, I doubt not the proportion was different. I wish to do justice to all. I think of all those brave men as Americans, in whose proud fame, as an American, I too have a share. Many of them, Whigs and Democrats, are my constituents and personal friends; and I thank them​ —​ more than thank them​ —​ one and all,
  • 23. for the high, imperishable honor they have conferred on our common State. “But the distinction between the cause of the President in beginning the war, and the cause of the country after it was begun, is a distinction which you can not perceive. To you, the President and the country seem to be all one. You are interested to see no distinction between them; and I venture to suggest that possibly your interest blinds you a little. We see the distinction, as we think, clearly enough; and our friends, who have fought in the war, have no difficulty in seeing it also. What those who have fallen would say, were they alive and here, of course we can never know; but with those who have returned there is no difficulty. Colonel Haskell and Major Gaines, members here, both fought in the war; and one of them underwent extraordinary perils and hardships; still they, like all other Whigs here, vote on the record that the war was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President. And even General Taylor himself, the noblest Roman of them all, has declared that, as a citizen, and particularly as a soldier, it is sufficient for him to know that his country is at war with a foreign nation, to do all in his power to bring it to a speedy and honorable termination, by the most vigorous and energetic operations, without inquiring about its justice, or any thing else connected with it. “Mr. Speaker, let our Democratic friends be comforted with the assurance that we are content with our position, content with our company, and content with our candidate; and that although they, in their generous sympathy, think we ought to be miserable, we really are not, and that they may dismiss the great anxiety they have on our account.” * * * * *
  • 24. SPEECH IN REPLY TO MR. DOUGLAS, ON KANSAS, THE DRED SCOTT DECISION, AND THE UTAH QUESTION. (Delivered at Springfield, Ill., June 26, 1857.) “Fellow-Citizens:​ —​ I am here, to-night, partly by the invitation of some of you, and partly by my own inclination. Two weeks ago Judge Douglas spoke here, on the several subjects of Kansas, the Dred Scott decision, and Utah. I listened to the speech at the time, and have read the report of it since. It was intended to controvert opinions which I think just, and to assail (politically, not personally) those men who, in common with me, entertain those opinions. For this reason I wished then, and still wish to make some answer to it which I now take the opportunity of doing. “I begin with Utah. If it prove to be true, as is probable, that the people of Utah are in open rebellion against the United States, then Judge Douglas is in favor of repealing their territorial organization, and attaching them to the adjoining States for judicial purposes. I say, too, if they are in rebellion, they ought to be somehow coerced to obedience; and I am not now prepared to admit or deny, that the Judge’s mode of coercing them is not as good as any. The Republicans can fall in with it, without taking back any thing they have ever said. To be sure, it would be a considerable backing down by Judge Douglas, from his much vaunted doctrine of self-government for the territories; but this is only additional proof of what was very plain from the beginning, that that doctrine was a mere deceitful pretence for the benefit of slavery. Those who could not see that much in the Nebraska act itself, which forced Governors, and Secretaries, and Judges on the people of the
  • 25. territories, without their choice or consent, could not be made to see, though one should rise from the dead. “But in all this, it is very plain the Judge evades the only question the Republicans have ever pressed upon the Democracy in regard to Utah. That question the Judge well knew to be this: ‘If the people of Utah shall peacefully form a State Constitution tolerating polygamy, will the Democracy admit them into the Union?’ There is nothing in the United States Constitution or law against polygamy; and why is it not a part of the Judge’s ‘sacred right of self-government’ for the people to have it, or rather to keep it, if they choose? These questions, so far as I know, the Judge never answers. It might involve the Democracy to answer them either way and they go unanswered. “As to Kansas. The substance of the Judge’s speech on Kansas, is an effort to put the Free State men in the wrong for not voting at the election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention. He says: ‘There is every reason to hope and believe that the law will be fairly interpreted and impartially executed, so as to insure to every bona fide inhabitant the free and quiet exercise of the elective franchise.’ “It appears extraordinary that Judge Douglas should make such a statement. He knows that, by the law, no one can vote who has not been registered; and he knows that the Free State men place their refusal to vote on the ground that but few of them have been registered. It is possible this is not true, but Judge Douglas knows it is asserted to be true in letters, newspapers, and public speeches, and borne by every mail, and blown by every breeze to the eyes and ears of the world. He knows it is boldly declared, that the people of many whole counties, and many whole neighborhoods in others, are left unregistered; yet he does not venture to contradict the declaration, or to point out how they can vote without being registered; but he just slips along, not seeming to know there is
  • 26. any such question of fact, and complacently declares, ‘There is every reason to hope and believe that the law will be fairly and impartially executed, so as to insure to every bona fide inhabitant the free and quiet exercise of the elective franchise.’ “I readily agree that if all had a chance to vote, they ought to have voted. If, on the contrary, as they allege, and Judge Douglas ventures not particularly to contradict, few only of the Free State men had a chance to vote, they were perfectly right in staying from the polls in a body. “By the way, since the Judge spoke, the Kansas election has come off. The Judge expressed his confidence that all the Democrats in Kansas would do their duty​ —​ including ‘Free State Democrats’ of course. The returns received here, as yet, are very incomplete; but, so far as they go, they indicate that only about one-sixth of the registered voters, have really voted; and this, too, when not more, perhaps, than one-half of the rightful voters have been registered, thus showing the thing to have been altogether the most exquisite farce ever enacted. I am watching with considerable interest, to ascertain what figure ‘the Free State Democrats’ cut in the concern. Of course they voted​ —​ all Democrats do their duty​ —​ and of course they did not vote for Slave State candidates. We soon shall know how many delegates they elected, how many candidates they have pledged to a free State, and how many votes were cast for them. “Allow me to barely whisper my suspicion, that there were no such things in Kansas as ‘Free State Democrats’​ —​ that they were altogether mythical, good only to figure in newspapers and speeches in the free States. If there should prove to be one real, living free State Democrat in Kansas, I suggest that it might be well to catch him, and stuff and preserve his skin, as an interesting specimen of that soon to be extinct variety of the genus Democrat.
  • 27. “And now, as to the Dred Scott decision. That decision declares two propositions​ —​ first, that a negro cannot sue in the United States Courts; and secondly, that Congress can not prohibit slavery in the Territories. It was made by a divided court​ —​ dividing differently on the different points. Judge Douglas does not discuss the merits of the decision, and in that respect, I shall follow his example, believing I could no more improve upon McLean and Curtis, than he could on Taney. “He denounces all who question the correctness of that decision, as offering violent resistance to it. But who resists it? Who has, in spite of the decision, declared Dred Scott free, and resisted the authority of his master over him? “Judicial decisions have two uses​ —​ first, to absolutely determine the case decided; and secondly to indicate to the public how other similar cases will be decided when they arise. For the latter use, they are called ‘precedents’ and ‘authorities.’ “We believe as much as Judge Douglas (perhaps more) in obedience to, and respect for the judicial department of Government. We think its decisions on Constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control, not only the particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country subject to be disturbed only by amendments of the Constitution, as provided in that instrument itself. More than this would be revolution. But we think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We know the court that made it has often overruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it overrule this. We offer no resistance to it. “Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents, according to circumstances. That this should be so, accords both with common sense, and the customary understanding of the legal profession. “If this important decision had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without any
  • 28. apparent partisan bias, and in accordance with legal public expectation, and with the steady practice of the departments, throughout our history, and had been in no part based on assumed historical facts which are not really true; or, if wanting in some of these, it had been before the court more than once, and had there been affirmed and re-affirmed through a course of years, it then might be, perhaps would be, factious, nay, even revolutionary, not to acquiesce in it as a precedent. “But when, as is true, we find it wanting in all these claims to the public confidence, it is not resistance, it is not factious, it is not even disrespectful, to treat it as not having yet quite established a settled doctrine for the country. But Judge Douglas considers this view awful. Hear him: “‘The courts are the tribunals prescribed by the Constitution and created by the authority of the people to determine, expound, and enforce the law. Hence, whoever resists the final decision of the highest judicial tribunal, aims a deadly blow to our whole Republican system of government​ —​ a blow which, if successful, would place all our rights and liberties at the mercy of passion, anarchy and violence. I repeat, therefore, that if resistance to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, in a matter like the points decided in the Dred Scott case, clearly within their jurisdiction as defined by the Constitution, shall be forced upon the country as a political issue, it will become a distinct and naked issue between the friends and enemies of the Constitution​ —​ the friends and enemies of the supremacy of the laws.’ “Why, this same Supreme Court once decided a national bank to be Constitutional; but General Jackson, as President of the United States, disregarded the decision, and vetoed a bill for a re-charter, partly on Constitutional ground, declaring that each public functionary must support the Constitution, ‘as he understands it.’ But hear the General’s own words. Here they are, taken from his veto message:
  • 29. “‘It is maintained by the advocates of the bank, that its Constitutionality, in all its features, ought to be considered as settled by precedent, and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I can not assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be regarded as deciding questions of Constitutional power, except where the acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered as well settled. So far from this being the case on this subject, an argument against the bank might be based on precedent. One Congress, in 1791, decided in favor of a bank; another, in 1811, decided against it. One Congress, in 1815, decided against a bank; another, in 1816, decided in its favor. Prior to the present Congress, therefore, the precedents drawn from that source were equal. If we resort to the States, the expression of legislative, judicial, and executive opinions against the bank have been probably to those in its favor as four to one. There is nothing in precedent, therefore, which, if its authority were admitted, ought to weigh in favor of the act before me.’ “I drop the quotations merely to remark, that all there ever was, in the way of precedent up to the Dred Scott decision, on the points therein decided, had been against that decision. But hear General Jackson further: “‘If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the co-ordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive and the Court, must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer, who takes an oath to support the Constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others.’ “Again and again have I heard Judge Douglas denounce that bank decision, and applaud General Jackson for disregarding it. It would be interesting for him to look over his recent speech, and see how exactly his fierce philippics against us for resisting Supreme Court decisions, fall upon his own
  • 30. head. It will call to mind a long and fierce political war in this country, upon an issue which, in his own language, and, of course, in his own changeless estimation, was ‘a distinct issue between the friends and the enemies of the Constitution,’ and in which war he fought in the ranks of the enemies of the Constitution. “I have said, in substance, that the Dred Scott decision was, in part, based on assumed historical facts which were not really true, and I ought not to leave the subject without giving some reasons for saying this; I, therefore, give an instance or two, which I think fully sustain me. Chief Justice Taney, in delivering the opinion of the majority of the Court, insists at great length, that negroes were no part of the people who made, or for whom was made, the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution of the United States. “On the contrary, Judge Curtis, in his dissenting opinion, shows that in five of the then thirteen States, to wit: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, free negroes were voters, and, in proportion to their numbers, had the same part in making the Constitution that the white people had. He shows this with so much particularity as to leave no doubt of its truth; and as a sort of conclusion on that point, holds the following language: “‘The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States, through the action, in each State, of those persons who were qualified by its laws to act thereon in behalf of themselves and all other citizens of the State. In some of the States, as we have seen, colored persons were among those qualified by law to act on the subject. These colored persons were not only included in the body of ‘the people of the United States,’ by whom the Constitution was ordained and established; but in at least five of the States they had the power to act, and, doubtless, did act, by their suffrages, upon the question of its adoption.’
  • 31. “Again, Chief Justice Taney says: ‘It is difficult, at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted.’ And again, after quoting from the Declaration, he says: ‘The general words above quoted would seem to include the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day, would be so understood.’ “In these the Chief Justice does not directly assert, but plainly assumes, as a fact, that the public estimate of the black man is more favorable now than it was in the days of the Revolution. This assumption is a mistake. In some trifling particulars, the condition of that race has been ameliorated; but as a whole, in this country, the change between then and now is decidedly the other way; and their ultimate destiny has never appeared so hopeless as in the last three or four years. In two of the five States​ —​ New Jersey and North Carolina​ —​ that then gave the free negro the right of voting, the right has since been taken away; and in the third​ —​ New York​ —​ it has been greatly abridged; while it has not been extended, so far as I know, to a single additional State, though the number of the States has more than doubled. In those days, as I understand, masters could, at their own pleasure, emancipate their slaves; but since then such legal restraints have been made upon emancipation as to amount almost to prohibition. In those days ‘Legislatures held the unquestioned power to abolish slavery in their respective States; but now it is becoming quite fashionable for State Constitutions to withhold that power from the Legislatures. In those days by common consent, the spread of the black man’s bondage to the new countries was prohibited; but now, Congress decides that it will not continue the prohibition​ —​ and the Supreme Court decides that it could not if it would. In those days our Declaration of Independence was held sacred by all, and thought to include all; but now, to aid in
  • 32. making the bondage of the negro universal and eternal, it is assailed, sneered at, construed, hawked at, and torn, till, if its framers could rise from their graves, they could not at all recognize it. All the powers of earth seem rapidly combining against him. Mammon is after him; ambition follows, philosophy follows, and the theology of the day is fast joining the cry. They have him in his prison-house; they have searched his person, and left no prying instrument with him. One after another they have closed the heavy iron doors upon him; and now they have him, as it were, bolted in with a lock of a hundred keys, which can never be unlocked without the concurrence of every key; the keys in the hands of a hundred different men, and they scattered to a hundred different and distant places; and they stand musing as to what invention, in all the dominions of mind and matter, can be produced to make the impossibility of his escape more complete than it is. “It is grossly incorrect to say or assume, that the public estimate of the negro is more favorable now than it was at the origin of the Government. “Three years and a half ago, Judge Douglas brought forward his famous Nebraska bill. The country was at once in a blaze. He scorned all opposition, and carried it through Congress. Since then he has seen himself superseded in a Presidential nomination, by one indorsing the general doctrine of his measure, but at the same time standing clear of the odium of its untimely agitation, and its gross breach of national faith; and he has seen that successful rival Constitutionally elected, not by the strength of friends, but by the division of his adversaries, being in a popular minority of nearly four hundred thousand votes. He has seen his chief aids in his own State, Shields and Richardson, politely speaking, successively tried, convicted, and executed, for an offence not their own, but his. And now he sees his own case, standing next on the docket for trial.
  • 33. “There is a natural disgust, in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races; and Judge Douglas evidently is basing his chief hope upon the chances of his being able to appropriate the benefit of this disgust to himself. If he can, by much drumming and repeating, fasten the odium of that idea upon his adversaries, he thinks he can struggle through the storm. He, therefore, clings to this hope, as a drowning man to the last plank. He makes an occasion for lugging it in from the opposition to the Dred Scott decision. He finds the Republicans insisting that the Declaration of Independence includes ALL men, black as well as white, and forthwith he boldly denies that it includes negroes at all, and proceeds to argue gravely that all who contend it does do so only because they want to vote, eat and sleep, and marry with negroes. He will have it that they can not be consistent else. Now, I protest against the counterfeit logic which concludes that because I do not want a black woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. I need not have her for either. I can just leave her alone. In some respects she certainly is not my equal; but in her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands, without asking leave of any one else, she is my equal, and the equal of all others. “Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, admits that the language of the Declaration is broad enough to include the whole human family; but he and Judge Douglas argue that the authors of that instrument did not intend to include negroes, by the fact that they did not at once actually place them on an equality with the whites. Now, this grave argument comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact, that they did not at once, or ever afterward, actually place all white people on an equality with one another. And this is the staple argument of both the Chief Justice and the Senator for doing this obvious violence to the plain, unmistakable language of the Declaration.
  • 34. “I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what respects they did consider all men created equal​ —​ equal with ‘certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ This they said, and this meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact, they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit.” * * * * * SPEECH IN REPLY TO SENATOR DOUGLAS. (At Chicago, on the evening of July 10, 1858.) “My Fellow-Citizens: On yesterday evening, upon the occasion of the reception given to Senator Douglas, I was furnished with a seat very convenient for hearing him, and was otherwise very courteously treated by him and his friends, for which I thank him and them. During the course of his remarks my name was mentioned in such a way as, I suppose, renders it at least not improper that I should make some sort of reply to him. I shall not attempt to follow him in the precise order in which he addressed the assembled multitude upon that occasion, though I shall perhaps do so in the main.
  • 35. “There was one question to which he asked the attention of the crowd, which I deem of somewhat less importance​ —​ at least of propriety for me to dwell upon​ —​ than the others, which he brought in near the close of his speech, and which I think it would not be entirely proper for me to omit attending to, and yet if I were not to give some attention to it now, I should probably forget it altogether. While I am upon this subject, allow me to say that I do not intend to indulge in that inconvenient mode sometimes adopted in public speaking, of reading from documents; but I shall depart from that rule so far as to read a little scrap from his speech, which notices this first topic of which I shall speak​ —​ that is, provided I can find it in the paper. [Examines the morning’s paper.] “‘I have made up my mind to appeal to the people against the combination that has been made against me! the Republican leaders having formed an alliance, an unholy and unnatural alliance, with a portion of unscrupulous federal office- holders. I intend to fight that allied army wherever I meet them. I know they deny the alliance, but yet these men who are trying to divide the Democratic party for the purpose of electing a Republican Senator in my place, are just as much the agents and tools of the supporters of Mr. Lincoln. Hence I shall deal with this allied army just as the Russians dealt with the allies at Sebastopol​ —​ that is, the Russians did not stop to inquire, when they fired a broadside, whether it hit an Englishman, a Frenchman, or a Turk. Nor will I stop to inquire, nor shall I hesitate, whether my blows shall hit these Republican leaders or their allies, who are holding the federal offices and yet acting in concert with them.’ “Well, now, gentlemen, is not that very alarming? Just to think of it! right at the outset of his canvass, I, a poor, kind, amiable, intelligent gentleman, I am to be slain in this way. Why, my friends, the Judge, is not only, as it turns out, not a dead lion, nor even a living one​ —​ he is the rugged Russian Bear!
  • 36. “But if they will have it​ —​ for he says that we deny it​ —​ that there is any such alliance as he says there is​ —​ and I don’t propose hanging very much upon this question of veracity​ —​ but if he will have it that there is such an alliance​ —​ that the Administration men and we are allied, and we stand in the attitude of English, French and Turk, he occupying the position of the Russian, in that case, I beg that he will indulge us while we barely suggest to him that these allies took Sebastopol. “Gentlemen, only a few more words as to this alliance. For my part, I have to say, that whether there be such an alliance, depends, so far as I know, upon what may be a right definition of the term alliance. If for the Republican party to see the other great party to which they are opposed divided among themselves, and not try to stop the division and rather be glad of it​ —​ if that is an alliance, I confess I am in; but if it is meant to be said that the Republicans had formed an alliance going beyond that, by which there is contribution of money or sacrifice of principle on the one side or the other so far as the Republican party is concerned, if there be any such thing, I protest that I neither know any thing of it, nor do I believe it. I will, however, say​ —​ as I think this branch of the argument is lugged in​ —​ I would, before I leave it, state, for the benefit of those concerned, that one of those same Buchanan men did once tell me of an argument that he made for his opposition to Judge Douglas. He said that a friend of our Senator Douglas had been talking to him, and had among other things said to him: ‘Why, you don’t want to beat Douglas?’ ‘Yes,’ said he, ‘I do want to beat him, and I will tell you why. I believe his original Nebraska Bill was right in the abstract, but it was wrong in the time that it was brought forward. It was wrong in the application to a Territory in regard to which the question had been settled; it was brought forward in a time when nobody asked him; it was tendered to the South when the South had not asked for it, but when they could not well refuse it; and for this same reason he forced that question upon our party; it has sunk the best men
  • 37. all over the nation, everywhere; and now when our President, struggling with the difficulties of this man’s getting up, has reached the very hardest point to turn in the case, his deserts him, and I am for putting him where he will trouble us no more.’ “Now, gentlemen, that is not my argument​ —​ that is not my argument at all. I have only been stating to you the argument of a Buchanan man. You will judge if there is any force in it. “Popular sovereignty! everlasting popular sovereignty! Let us for a moment inquire into this vast matter of popular sovereignty. What is popular sovereignty? We recollect that in an early period in the history of this struggle, there was another name for the same thing​ —​ Squatter Sovereignty. It was not exactly Popular Sovereignty, but Squatter Sovereignty. What do those terms mean? What do those terms mean when used now? And vast credit is taken by our friend, the Judge, in regard to his support of it, when he declares the last years of his life have been, and all the future years of his life shall be, devoted to this matter of popular sovereignty. What is it? Why it is the sovereignty of the people! What was Squatter Sovereignty? I suppose if it had any significance at all it was the right of the people to govern themselves, to be sovereign in their own affairs while they were squatted down in a country not their own, while they had squatted on a Territory that did not belong to them, in the sense that a State belongs to the people who inhabit it​ —​ when it belonged to the nation​ —​ such right to govern themselves was called ‘Squatter Sovereignty.’ “Now I wish you to mark. What has become of that Squatter Sovereignty? What has become of it? Can you get any body to tell you now that the people of a Territory have any authority to govern themselves, in regard to this mooted question of slavery, before they form a State Constitution? No such thing at all, although there is a general running fire, and although there has been a hurrah made in every speech on that side, assuming that policy had given the people of a Territory
  • 38. the right to govern themselves upon this question; yet the point is dodged. To-day it has been decided​ —​ no more than a year ago it was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, as is insisted upon to-day, that the people of a Territory have no right to exclude slavery from a Territory, that if any one man chooses to take slaves into a Territory, all of the rest of the people have no right to keep them out. This being so, and this decision being made one of the points that the Judge approved, and one in the approval of which he says he means to keep me down​ —​ put me down I should not say, for I have never been up. He says he is in favor of it, and sticks to it, and expects to win his battle on that decision, which says that there is no such thing as Squatter Sovereignty; but that any one man may take slaves into a Territory, and all the other men in the Territory may be opposed to it, and yet by reason of the Constitution they can not prohibit it. When that is so, how much is left of this vast matter of Squatter Sovereignty I should like to know? [A voice​ —​ ‘It is all gone.’] “When we get back, we get to the point of the right of the people to make a Constitution. Kansas was settled, for example, in 1854. It was a Territory yet, without having formed a Constitution, in a very regular way, for three years. All this time negro slavery could be taken in by any few individuals, and by that decision of the Supreme Court, which the Judge approves, all the rest of the people can not keep it out; but when they come to make a Constitution they may say they will not have slavery. But it is there; they are obliged to tolerate it some way, and all experience shows it will be so​ —​ for they will not take negro slaves and absolutely deprive the owners of them. All experience shows this to be so. All that space of time that runs from the beginning of the settlement of the Territory until there is sufficiency of people to make a State Constitution​ —​ all that portion of time popular sovereignty is given up. The seal is absolutely put down upon it by the Court decision, and Judge Douglas puts his on the top of that, yet he is appealing to the
  • 39. people to give him vast credit for his devotion to popular sovereignty. “Again, when we get to the question of the right of the people to form a State Constitution as they please, to form it with slavery or without slavery​ —​ if that is any thing new, I confess I don’t know it. Has there ever been a time when any body said that any other than the people of a Territory itself should form a Constitution? What is now in it that Judge Douglas should have fought several years of his life, and pledge himself to fight all the remaining years of his life for? Can Judge Douglas find any body on earth that said that any body else should form a Constitution for a people? [A voice, ‘Yes.’] Well, I should like you to name him; I should like to know who he was. [Same voice, ‘John Calhoun.’] “No, Sir, I never heard of even John Calhoun saying such a thing. He insisted on the same principle as Judge Douglas; but his mode of applying it in fact, was wrong. It is enough for my purpose to ask this crowd, when ever a Republican said any thing against it? They never said any thing against it, but they have constantly spoken for it; and whosoever will undertake to examine the platform, and the speeches of responsible men of the party, and of irresponsible men, too, if you please, will be unable to find one word from anybody in the Republican ranks, opposed to that Popular Sovereignty which Judge Douglas thinks that he has invented. I suppose that Judge Douglas will claim in a little while, that he is the inventor of the idea that the people should govern themselves; that nobody ever thought of such a thing until he brought it forward. We do remember, that in that old Declaration of Independence, it is said that ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’ There is the origin of the Popular
  • 40. Sovereignty. Who, then, shall come in at this day and claim that he invented it”? After referring, in appropriate terms, to the credit claimed by Douglas for defeating the Lecompton policy, Mr. Lincoln proceeds: “I defy you to show a printed resolution passed in a Democratic meeting​ —​ I take it upon myself to defy any man to show a printed resolution of a Democratic meeting, large or small, in favor of Judge Trumbull, or any of the five to one Republican who beat the bill. Every thing must be for the Democrats! They did every thing, and the five to the one that really did the thing, they snub over, and they do not seem to remember that they have an existence upon the face of the earth. “Gentlemen, I fear that I shall become tedious. I leave this branch of the subject to take hold of another. I take up that part of Judge Douglas’s speech in which he respectfully attended to me. “Judge Douglas made two points upon my recent speech at Springfield. He says they are to be the issues of this campaign. The first one of these points he bases upon the language in a speech which I delivered at Springfield, which I believe I can quote correctly from memory. I said there that ‘we are now far on in the fifth year since a policy was instituted for the avowed object, and with the confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation; under the operation of that policy, that agitation had not only not ceased, but had constantly augmented. I believe it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. A house divided against itself can not stand. I believe this Government can not endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved’​ —​ I am quoting from my speech​ —​ ‘I do not expect the
  • 41. house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will come all one thing or the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the 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 until it shall have become alike lawful in all the States, North as well as South.’ “In this paragraph which I have quoted in your hearing, and to which I ask the attention of all, Judge Douglas thinks he discovers great political heresy. I want your attention particularly to what he has inferred from it. He says I am in favor of making all the States of this Union uniform in all their internal regulations; that in all their domestic concerns I am in favor of making them entirely uniform. He draws this inference from the language I have quoted to you. He says that I am in favor of making war by the North upon the South for the extinction of slavery; that I am also in favor of inviting, as he expresses it, the South to a war upon the North, for the purpose of nationalizing slavery. Now, it is singular enough, if you will carefully read that passage over, that I did not say that I was in favor of any thing in it. I only said what I expected would take place. I made a prediction only​ —​ it may have been a foolish one perhaps. I did not even say that I desired that slavery should be put in course of ultimate extinction. I do say so now, however, so there need be no longer any difficulty about that. It may be written down in the next speech. “Gentlemen, Judge Douglas informed you that this speech of mine was probably carefully prepared. I admit that it was. I am not master of language; I have not a fine education; I am not capable of entering into a disquisition upon dialects, as I believe you call it; but I do not believe the language I employed bears any such construction as Judge Douglas puts upon it. But I don’t care about a quibble in regard to words. I know what I meant, and I will not leave this crowd in doubt, if I can explain it to them, what I really meant in the use of that paragraph.
  • 42. “I am not, in the first place, unaware that this Government has endured eighty-two years, half slave and half free. I know that. I am tolerably well acquainted with the history of the country, and I know that it has endured eighty-two years, half slave and half free. I believe​ —​ and that is what I meant to allude to there​ —​ I believe it has endured, because during all that time, until the introduction of the Nebraska bill, the public mind did rest all the time in the belief that slavery was in course of ultimate extinction. That was what gave us the rest that we had through that period of eighty-two years; at least, so I believe. I have always hated slavery, I think, as much as any Abolitionist. I have been an Old Line Whig. I have always hated it, but I have always been quiet about it until this new era of the introduction of the Nebraska Bill began. I always believed that everybody was against it, and that it was in course of ultimate extinction. [Pointing to Mr. Browning, who stood near by:] Browning thought so; the great mass of the Nation have rested in the belief that slavery was in the course of ultimate extinction. They had reason so to believe. “The adoption of the Constitution and its attendant history led the people to believe so; and that such was the belief of the framers of the Constitution itself. Why did those old men, about the time of the adoption of the Constitution, decree that slavery should not go into the new territory, where it had not already gone? Why declare that within twenty years the African slave- trade, by which slaves are supplied, might be cut off by Congress? Why were all these acts? I might enumerate more of such acts​ —​ but enough. What were they but a clear indication that the framers of the Constitution intended and expected the ultimate extinction of that institution? And now, when I say, as I said in this speech that Judge Douglas has quoted from, when I say that I think the opponents of slavery will resist the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest with the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction, I only mean
  • 43. to say, that they will place it where the founders of this Government originally placed it. “I have said a hundred times, and I have no inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free States to enter into the slave States, and to interfere with the question of slavery at all. I have said that always. Judge Douglas has heard me say it​ —​ if not quite a hundred times, at least as good as a hundred times; and when it is said that I am in favor of interfering with slavery where it exists, I know that it is unwarranted by any thing I have ever intended, and, as I believe, by any thing I have ever said. If, by any means, I have ever used language which could fairly be so construed (as, however, I believe I never have), I now correct it. “So much, then, for the inference that Judge Douglas draws, that I am in favor of setting the sections at war with one another. I know that I never meant any such thing, and I believe that no fair mind can infer any such thing from any thing I have ever said. “Now in relation to his inference that I am in favor of a general consolidation of all the local institutions of the various States. I will attend to that for a little while, and try to inquire, if I can, how on earth it could be that any man could draw such an inference from any thing I said. I have said, very many times, in Judge Douglas’s hearing, that no man believed more than I in the principle of self-government; that it lies at the bottom of all my ideas of just government, from beginning to end. I have denied that his use of that term applies properly. But for the thing itself, I deny that any man has ever gone ahead of me in his devotion to the principle, whatever he may have done in efficiency in advocating it. I think that I have said it in your hearing​ —​ that I believe each individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and with the fruit of his labor, so far as it in no wise interferes with any other man’s
  • 44. rights​ —​ that each community, as a State, has a right to do exactly as it pleases with all the concerns within that State that interfere with the right of no other State, and that the General Government, upon principle, has no right to interfere with any thing other than that general class of things that does concern the whole. I have said that at all times. I have said as illustrations, that I do not believe in the right of Illinois to interfere with the cranberry laws of Indiana, the oyster laws of Virginia, or the liquor laws of Maine. I have said these things over and over again, and I repeat them here as my sentiments.... “So much then as to my disposition​ —​ my wish​ —​ to have all the State Legislatures blotted out, and to have one consolidated government, and a uniformity of domestic regulations in all the States; by which I suppose it is meant, if we raise corn here, we must make sugar-cane grow here too, and we must make those which grow North grow in the South. All this I suppose he understands I am in favor of doing. Now, so much for all this nonsense​ —​ for I must call it so. The Judge can have no issue with me on a question of established uniformity in the domestic regulations of the States. “A little now on the other point​ —​ the Dred Scott decision. Another of the issues he says that is to be made with me, is upon his devotion to the Dred Scott decision, and my opposition to it. “I have expressed heretofore, and I now repeat my opposition to the Dred Scott decision, but I should be allowed to state the nature of that opposition, and I ask your indulgence while I do so. What is fairly implied by the term Judge Douglas has used, ‘resistance to the decision?’ I do not resist it. If I wanted to take Dred Scott from his master, I would be interfering with property, and that terrible difficulty that Judge Douglas speaks of, of interfering with property would arise. But I am doing no such thing as that, but all that I am doing is
  • 45. refusing to obey it as a political rule. If I were in Congress, and a vote should come up on a question whether slavery should be prohibited in a new Territory, in spite of the Dred Scott decision, I would vote that it should. “That is what I would do. Judge Douglas said last night, that before the decision he might advance his opinion, and it might be contrary to the decision when it was made; but after it was made he would abide by it until it was reversed. Just so! We let this property abide by the decision, but we will try to reverse that decision. [Loud applause.] We will try to put it where Judge Douglas will not object, for he says he will obey it until it is reversed. Some body has to reverse that decision, since it was made, and we mean to reverse it, and we mean to do it peaceably. “What are the uses of decisions of courts? They have two uses. As rules of property they have two uses. First​ —​ they decide upon the question before the court. They decide in this case that Dred Scott is a slave. Nobody resists that. Not only that, but they say to everybody else, that persons standing just as Dred Scott stands, is as he is. That is, they say that when a question comes up upon another person, it will be so decided again unless the court decides in another way, unless the court overrules its decision. Well, we mean to do what we can to have the court decide the other way. That is one thing we mean to try to do. “The sacredness that Judge Douglas throws around this decision, is a degree of sacredness that has never been before thrown around any other decision. I have never heard of such a thing. Why, decisions apparently contrary to that decision, or that good lawyers thought were contrary to that decision, have been made by that very court before. It is the first of the kind; it is an astonisher in legal history. It is a new wonder of the world. It is based upon falsehoods in the main as to the facts​ —​ allegation of facts upon which it stands are not facts at all in
  • 46. many instances, and no decision made on any question​ —​ the first instance of a decision made under so many unfavorable circumstances​ —​ thus placed, has ever been held by the profession as law, and it has always needed confirmation before the lawyers regarded it as settled law. But Judge Douglas will have it that all hands must take this extraordinary decision, made under these extraordinary circumstances, and give their vote in Congress in accordance with it, yield to it and obey it in every possible sense. Circumstances alter cases. Do not gentlemen here remember the case of that same Supreme Court, twenty-five or thirty years ago, deciding that a National Bank was Constitutional? I ask, if somebody does not remember that a National Bank was declared to be Constitutional? Such is the truth, whether it be remembered or not. The Bank charter ran out, and a re-charter was granted by Congress. That re- charter was laid before General Jackson. It was urged upon him, when he denied the Constitutionality of the Bank, that the Supreme Court had decided that it was Constitutional; and that General Jackson then said that the Supreme Court had no right to lay down a rule to govern a co-ordinate branch of the Government, the members of which had sworn to support the Constitution​ —​ that each member had sworn to support that Constitution as he understood it. I will venture here to say, that I have heard Judge Douglas say that he approved of General Jackson for that act. What has now become of all his tirade about ‘resistance to the Supreme Court?’ * * * “We were often​ —​ more than once, at least​ —​ in the course of Judge Douglas’s speech last night, reminded that this Government was made for white men​ —​ that he believed it was made for white men. Well, that is putting it into a shape in which no one wants to deny it; but the Judge then goes into his passion for drawing inferences that are not warranted. I protest, now, and forever, against that counterfeit logic which presumes that because I did not want a negro woman for a slave, I do necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I need
  • 47. Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world, offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth. That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to self-development guides and children's books. More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and personal growth every day! ebookbell.com