arrangement and plot entered into by the very men who now claim credit for opposing a Constitution not submitted to the people, to have a Constitution formed and put in force without giving the people an opportunity to pass upon it. This, my friends, is a serious charge, but I charge it to-night, that the very men who traverse the country under banners, proclaiming popular sovereignty, by design, concocted a bill on purpose to force a Constitution upon that people.
Again, speaking to some one in the crowd, he says:
And you want to satisfy yourself that he was in the plot to force a Constitution upon that people?
I will satisfy you. I will cram the truth down any honest man's throat, until he cannot deny it, and to the man who does deny it, I will cram the lie down his throat till he shall cry enough!
It is preposterous — it is the most damnable effrontery that man ever put on to conceal a scheme to defraud and cheat the people out of their rights, and then claim credit for it.
That is polite and decent language for a Senator of the United States
Remember that that language was used without any provocation whatever from me. I had not alluded to him in any manner in any speech that I had made, hence without provocation.
As soon as he sets his foot within the State
, he makes the direct charge that I was a party to a plot to force a Constitution upon the people of Kansas
against their will, and knowing that it would be denied he talks about cramming the lie down the throat of any man who shall deny it, until he cries enough.
Why did he take it for granted that it would be denied, unless he knew it to be false?
Why did he deem it necessary to make a threat in advance that he would “cram the lie” down the throat of any man that should deny it?
I have no doubt that the entire Abolition party consider it very polite for Mr. Trumbull
to go round uttering calumnies of that kind, bullying and talking of cramming lies down men's throats ; but if I deny any of his lies by calling him a liar, they are shocked at the indecency of the language ; hence, to-day, instead of calling him a liar I intend to prove that he is one.
I wish in the first place to refer to the evidence adduced by Trumbull
, at Chicago
, to sustain his charge.
He there declared that Mr. Toombs
, of Georgia
, introduced a bill into Congress authorizing the people of Kansas
to form a Constitution and come into the Union
, that when introduced it contained a clause requiring the Constitution
to be submitted to the people, and that I struck out the words of that clause.
Suppose it were true that there was such a clause in the bill, and that I struck it out, is that proof of a plot to force a Constitution upon a people against their will?
Bear in mind, that from the days of George Washington
to the Administration of Franklin Pierce
, there had never been passed by Congress a bill requiring the submission of a Constitution to the people.
's charge, that I struck out, that clause, were true, it would only prove that I had reported the bill in the exact shape of every bill of like character that passed under Washington
, or any other President
, to the time of the then present Administration.
I ask you, would that be evidence of a design to force a Constitution on a people against their will?
If it were so, it would be evidence against Washington
, Van Buren
, and every other President
But upon examination, it turns out that the Toombs bill never did contain a clause requiring the Constitution
to be submitted.
Hence no such clause was ever stricken out by me or any body else.
It. is true, however, that, the Toombs bill and its authors all took it for granted that the Constitution
would be submitted.
There had never been, in the history of this Government any attempt made to force a Constitution upon an unwilling people, and nobody dreamed that any such attempt would be made, or deemed it necessary to provide for such a contingency.
If such a clause was necessary in Mr. Trumbull
's opinion, why did he not offer an amendment to that effect?