souri, in 1810, was 20,845, and in 1860, 1,182,012; the ratio of increase from 1810 to 1860, being 5,570.48. (Ib.) The rank of Missouri, in 1810, was, 22, and of Illinois, 23. The rank of Missouri in 1860, was 8, and of Illinois, 4.

The area of Missouri is 67,380 square miles, being the 4th in rank, as to area, of all the States. The area of Illinois is 55,405 square miles, ranking the 10th. Missouri, then has 11,875 more square miles than Illinois. This excess is greater by 749 square miles than the aggregate area of Massachusetts, Delaware, and Rhode Island, containing in 1860, a population of 1,517,902. The population of Missouri per square mile in 1810, exceeded that of Illinois .08; but, in 1860, the population of Missouri per square mile, was 17.54, ranking the 22d, and that of Illinois, 30.90, ranking the 13th. Illinois, with her ratio to the square mile, and the area of Missouri, would have had in 1860, a population of 2,082,042; and Missouri, with her ratio and the area of Illinois, would have had in 1860, a population of 971,803, making a difference in favor of Illinois, of 1,110,239, instead of 529,939. The absolute increase of population of Illinois per square mile, from 1850 to 1860, was 15.54, and of Missouri, 7.43, Illinois, ranking the 6th, in this ratio, and Missouri, the 14th. These facts prove the vast advantages which Missouri possessed in her larger area, as compared with Illinois.

But Missouri, in 1810, we have seen, had nearly double the population of Illinois. Now, reversing their numbers in 1810, the ratio of increase of each remaining the same, the population of Illinois, in 1860, would have been 2,905,014, and of Missouri, 696,983. If we bring the greater area of Missouri as an element into this calculation, the population of Illinois in 1860, would have exceeded that of Missouri, more than two millions and a half.

By census table 36, the cash value of the farms of Illinois, in 1860, was $432,531,072, and of Missouri, $230,632,126, making a difference in favor of Illinois, of $201,898,946, which is the loss which Missouri has sustained by slavery in the single item of the value of her farm lands. Abolish slavery there, and the value of the farm lands of Missouri would soon equal those of Illinois, and augment the wealth

of the farmers of Missouri, over two hundred millions of dollars. But these farm lands of Missouri embrace only 19,984,809 acres, (table 36,) leaving unoccupied 23,138,391 acres. The difference between the value of the unoccupied lands of Missouri and Illinois, is six dollars per acre, at which rate the increased value of the unoccupied lands of Missouri, in the absence of slavery, is $148,830,346, Thus it appears, that the loss to Missouri, in the value of her lands, caused by slavery, is $340,729,292. If we add to this diminished value of town and city property in Missouri, from the same cause, the total loss in that State in the value of real estate, exceeds $400,000,000, which is nearly twenty times the value of her slaves.

By table 35, the increase in the value of real and personal property of Illinois, from 1850 to 1860, was $715,595,276, being 457.93 per cent, and Missouri, $363,966,691, being 265.18 per cent. At the same ratio of increase from 1860 to 1870, the total wealth of Illinois, would be $3,993,000,000, and of Missouri, $1,329,000,000, the difference being $2,664,000,000, caused by slavery, which is more than twice the value of all the slaves in the Union, at the beginning of the slaveholder's war.

These comparisons could be extended to all the free, and lately slave States, with the same results.

Virginia was a considerable colony when Pennsylvania was occupied exclusively by Indian tribes.

In 1790, the population of Virginia exceeded that of Pennsylvania, 313,925, yet in 1860, Pennsylvania exceeded Virginia, 1,308,797. The ratio of increase in Virginia, being from 1790 to 1860, 113.32 per cent., and in Pennsylvania, during the same period, 569.03 per cent.

The effects of slavery upon morals and civilization will be strikingly illustrated by the barbarities and cruelties of the great civil war, upon a description of which I must soon enter. When it is remembered that there were nearly four millions of people among whom marriage had no legal existence, the family relation no legal recognition, where it was a penal offence to teach a negro child to read the Holy Bible; where the chastity of the colored woman was without

protection, where a negro could not be a witness in a court of Justice, the reflecting mind will be able to form a correct estimate of the moral condition of both blacks and whites growing out of this institution of slavery.

While idleness, ignorance, license, and the exercise of unrestrained, and irresponsible power growing out of slavery produced its legitimate effects, demoralization, licentiousness, and vice of all kinds, and rapidly reduced a noble race of men, capable of the sublime heroism, and self-denial of the Revolution, to that of a semi-barbarous condition, there were many exceptions, and localities, where the institution was patriarchal in its character, and where the high moral character of the masters, with leisure, means, and taste for intellectual culture, produced a high order of men.

There were localities at the South where existed the most attractive and charming illustrations of social culture and refinement. There were families who regarded their position as masters, as responsible trusts; who felt themselves responsible to God for the moral and physical well-being of their dependants. There were to be found many philanthropists and noble women in the slave States, who devoted themselves to the moral culture and well-being of their servants, with a philanthropy as devoted and self-sacrificing as any that sent the missionary to christianize heathen in foreign lands.

There also, were very many specimens of that genial hospitality, that kindness, grace, and refinement, which gave to social life, at the South, its proverbial charm.

But these were becoming more and more exceptional, as the degeneracy, and profligacy, resulting from slavery extended.

It is not in human nature to be born, reared, and live with a race, over which is exercised, unrestricted, irresponsible power, subsisting upon its unrequited toil, pampered by idleness, and license, without moral degradation.

Especially did slavery unfit the people of the South for the administration of Republican Government. It undermined the purity, simplicity and virtue which must ever be the basis of a successful Republic.

The slaveholders, as a class, were tyrants, and loving to erercise power themselves, disregarded the rights of others, and the restraints of law. As a class, the slaveholders would gladly have changed the Government to that of an aristocracy or monarchy, so that it would have secured slavery. They verified the truth stated by Mr. Lincoln in his letter, dated April, 1859, to the republicans of Boston, who celebrated Jefferson's birth-day. He said:

This is a world of compensation, and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves, and under a just God, cannot long retain it.

The degeneracy of the slaveholders, was exhibited but too often and too sadly, during the war. As a class, with many honorable exceptions, they were cruel, treacherous, and barbarous.

Now that slavery is extinct, the true manhood of the South will again arise, and regain its former position; we shall again see worthy successors of Washington, Madison, and Jefferson, in Virginia, and the South, who will arise and help to rear, shape, and preserve that vast Continental Republic of justice, intelligence and virtue, which is now to arise.

But it is time to return to the sketch of that universal agitation of the slavery question which produced the slaveholder's rebellion, and in which this institution was to die, as the result of the war brought on by itself, and by which it sought to strengthen and perpetuate its power.

CHAPTER V.

LINCOLN FROM 1857 TO 1860-THE LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS

DEBATES.

LINCOLN'S NOMINATION FOR THE SENATE HIS SPRINGFIELD SPEECH-HE CHALLENGES DOUGLAS TO JOINT DISCUSSION DOUGLAS ACCEPTS-THE DEBATE-THE MEETING AT FREEPORT -SPEECH AT COLUMBUS-AT CINCINNATI-AT COOPER INSTITUTE -THE "RAIL-SPLITTER.”

PERHAPS, the man to whom Abraham Lincoln was more

indebted for his greatness and his fame, than any other, was his great political rival, Stephen A. Douglas. Mr. Lincoln said, on one occasion, in 1856, of Mr. Douglas, "Twenty-two years ago, Judge Douglas and I, first became acquainted; we were both young then-he a trifle younger than I. Even then we were both ambitious, I, perhaps, quite as much as he. With me, the race of ambition has been a failure-a flat failure. With him, it has been one of splendid success. His name fills the Nation, and it is not unknown in foreign lands. I affect no contempt for the high eminence he has reached; so reached that the oppressed of my species might have shared with me in the elevation, I would rather stand on that eminence, than wear the richest crown that ever pressed a monarch's brow." These great men, alike self-made, self-educated, coming early in life to Illinois, soon became leaders, each of his party. Lincoln had contended for supremacy, in generous emulation with Hardin, Baker, Browning, Logan, and Trumbull. Douglas had had keen rivals in Breese, Shields, Young, McClernand, and others; but in 1857, each was confessedly the leader of his party in Illinois. No two men were ever more unlike. Physically and mentally, they were contrasts. Lincoln was the real,