P!>° y "o • ^0 S%$C^^. ,4q -^^0^ / 4^^'-. \/ Z^"^'-: \,*^ .*^&\ \,/ .*;^'-: %. te^-^ „A^ :)^i^:. \/ ;^\ %,^^ ^>^^A. ' o 7/// v> /yWW >. '\ r .. <^ •' = "°'' ^^"^ -l^ -^^0^ >. ^^^. '.c,..,,.:./; .^-^^^ \^^^^; ^^-^^ ':^^>i <^^^ '^^^mm M Jlutbentic Jlccount OF Hon. Abraham Lincoln Being Invited to give an Address in Cooper Institute, N. Y. February 27, I860 Together with Mr. Bryant's Introduction and Mr. Lincoln's Speech !Jr: PRIVATEI,Y PRINTED PUTNAM, CONN. I915 .4 • 6^5 %. ao • li ruct. ^ NARRATIVE OF JAMES A. BRIGGS, Esq. (From The New York Evening Post, August 16, 1867) To the Editor of The Evening Post : In October, 1859, Messrs. Joseph H. Richards, J. M. Petting-ill, and S. W. Tubbs called on me at the office of the Ohio State Agency, 25 William Street, and requested me to write to the Hon. Thomas Corwin of Ohio, and the Hon. Abraham Lincoln of Illinois, and invite them to lecture in a course of lectures these young gentlemen proposed for the winter in Plymouth Church, Brooklyn. I wrote the letters as requested, and offered as com- pensation for each lecture, as I was authorized, the sum of $200. The proposition to lecture was accepted by Messrs. Corwin and Lincoln. Mr. Corwin delivered his lecture in Plymouth Church, as he was on his way to Washington to attend Congress ; Mr. Lincoln could not lecture until late in the season, and the proposition was agreed to by the gentlemen named, and accepted by Mr. Lincoln, as the following letter will show: Narrative of James A. Briggs, Esq. Danville, Illinois, November 13, 1859. "James A. Beiggs, Esq. "Deak Sir: Yonrs of the 1st inst., closing with my proposition for compromise, was dnly received. I will be on hand, and in due time will notify you of the exact day. I believe, after all, I shall make a political speech of it. You have no objection! "I would like to know in advance, whether I am also to speak in New York. "Very, very glad your election went right. "Yours truly, A. LiiSrcoLN. "P. S. — I am here at court, but my address is still at Springfield, 111." In due time Mr. Lincoln wrote me that he would deliver the lecture, a political one, on the evening of the 27th of February, 1860. This was rather late in the season for a lecture, and the young gentlemen who were responsible were doubtful about its success, as the expenses were large. It was stipulated that the lecture was to be in Plymouth Church, Brooklyn; I requested and urged that the lecture should be deliv- ered at the Cooper Institute. They were fearful it would not pay expenses — $350. I thought it would. In order to relieve Messrs, Richards, Pettingill, and Tubbs of all responsibility, I called upon some of the officers of "The Young Men's Republican Union," and proposed that they should take Mr. Lincoln, and that the lecture should be delivered under their auspices. Tliey respectfully declined. I next called upon Mr. Simeon Draper, then presi- dent of "The Draper Republican Union Club of New York," and proposed to him that his "Union" take Mr. Lincoln and the lecture, and assume the responsi- ])Hity of tlie expenses. Mr. Draper and his friends Narrative of James A. Briggs, Esq. declined, and Mr. Lincoln was left on the hands of ''the original Jacobs." After considerable discussion, it was agreed on the part of the young gentlemen that the lecture should be delivered in the Cooper Institute, if I would agree to share one-fourth of the expenses, if the sale of the tickets (25 cents) for the lecture did not meet the out- lay. To this I assented, and the lecture was advertised to be delivered in the Cooper Institute, on the evening of the 27th of February. Mr. Lincoln read the notice of the lecture in the papers, and, v^dthout any knowledge of the arrange- ment, was somewhat surprised to learn that he was first to make his appearance before a New York audi- ence, instead of a Plymouth Church audience. A notice of the proposed lecture appeared in the New York papers, and the Times spoke of him ''as a lawyer who had some local reputation in Illinois." At my personal solicitation Mh. William Cuij.ei^ Bkyant presided as chairman of the meeting, and introduced Mr. Ijincoln for the first time to a New York audience. The lecture was a wonderful success; it has become a part of the history of the country. Its remarkable ability was everywhere acknowledged, and after the 27th of Februarv the name of Mr. Lincoln was a familiar one to all the people of the East. After Mr. Tjincoln closed his lecture, Mr. David Dudley Field, Mr. James W. Nye, Mr. Horace Greeley, and myself were called out by the audience and made short speeches. I remember of saying then, "One of three R-Antlemen will be our standard-bearer in the presi- dential contest of this year: the distinguished Senator of New York, Mr. Seward; the late able and accom- plished Governor of Ohio, Mr. Chase ; or the 'Unknown Knifrht' who entered the political lists against the Bois Guilbert of Democracy on the prairies of Illinois in Narrative of James A. Briggs, Esq. 1858, and unhorsed him — Abraham Lincohi." Some friends joked me after the meeting as not being a ''good prophet." The lecture was over — all the expenses were paid, and I was handed by the gentle- men interested the sum of $4.25 as my share of the profits, as they would have called on me if there had been a deficiency in the receipts to meet the expenses. Immediately after the lecture, Mr. Lincoln went to Exeter, N. H., to visit his son Robert, then at school there, and I sent him a check for $200. Mr. Tubbs informed me a few weeks ago that after the check was paid at the Park Bank he tore it up ; but that he would give $200 for the check if it could be restored with the endorsement of "A. Lincoln," as it was made payable to the order of Mr. Lincoln. After the return of Mr. Lincoln to New York from the East, where he had made several speeches, he said to me, *'I have seen what all the New York papers said about that thing of mine in the Cooper Institute, with the exception of the New York Evening Post, and I would like to know what Mr. Bryant thought of it;" and he then added, ''It is worth a visit from Spring- field, Illinois, to New York to make the acquaintance of such a man as William Cullen Beyant." At Mr. Ijincoln's request, I sent him a copy of the Evening Post \y\i\\ a notice of his lecture. On returning from Mr. Beecher's Church, on Sun- day, in company with Mr. Lincoln, as wo were passing the post-office, I remarked to him, "Mr. Lincoln, I wiftli vou would take particular notice of what a dark and dismal place we have here for a post-office, and I do it for this reason: I think your chance for being llio next Prosident is eoual to that of any man in the country. When you are President will you recommend an appropriation of a million of dollars for a suitable « location for a post-office in this city?" With a signifi- | Narrative of James A. Briggs, Esq. cant gesture Mr. Lincoln remarked, "I will make a note of that." On going np Broadway with Mr. Lincoln in the eve- ning, from the Astor House, to hear the Rev. Dr. E. H. Chapin, he said to me, "When I was East several gentlemen made about the same remarks to me that you did to-day about the Presidency; they thought my chances were about equal to the best." James A. Briggs. P. S. — The writers of Mr. Lincoln's Biography have tilings considerably mixed about Mr. Lincoln going to the Five Points Mission School, at the Five Points, in New York, that he found his way there alone, etc., etc. Mr. Lincoln went there in the afternoon with his old friend, Hiram Barney, Esq., and after Mr. B. had informed Mr. Barlow, the Superintendent, who the stranger with him was, Mr. Barlow requested Mr. Lin- coln to speak to the children, which he did. I met Mr. Lincoln at Mr. Barney's at tea, just after this pleasant, and to him strange, visit at the Five Points Mission School. J. A. B. INTRODUCTION BY WILLIAM CULLEN BRYANT THE EMINENT POET (From The New York Tril)une, February 28, 18G0) Mr. Bryant on taking the chair said: "My friends, it is a grateful office that I perform in introducing to you at this time an eminent citizen of the West, whom you know, or whom you have known hitlierto only by fame, but who has consented to address a New York assemblage this evening. The Great West, my friends, is a potent auxiliary in the l)attle we are iigliting for Freedom against Slavery; in behalf of civilization against barbarism; for the occupation of some of the finest regions of our con- tinent, on which the settlers are now building their cabins. I see a higher and a wiser agency than that of man in the causes that have filled with a hardy population the vast and fertile region which forms the western parts of the valley of the Mississippi, a race of men who are not ashamed to till their acres Willi their own hands, and who would be ashamed to subsist by the labor of the slave. (Cheers). These children of th(' West, my friends, form a living bul- wark against tlie advances of Shivery, and from them is recruited the vanguard of the armies of Liberty. (Applause). One of them will appear before you this Introduction hij William Cullcn Bryant evening. I present to you a gallant soldier of the political campaign of 1856, who then rendered good service to the Republican cause, and who was since, the champion of that cause in the struggle which took place two 3^ears later for the supremacy in the Legis- lature of Illinois, who took the field then against Douglas, and who would have then won victory but for the unjust apportionment laws of the state which allowed a minority of the people to elect the majority of the Legislature. I have only, my friends, to^ pro- nounce the name of Abeaham Lincoln of Illinois. (Loud cheering). I have only to pronounce his name to secure your profoundest attention." (Continued applause and three cheers for Abraham Lincoln). SPEECH OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN Delivered at the Cooper Institute Monday. Feb. 27, 1860 Mr. President and Fellow-Citizens of New York: The facts with which I shall deal this evening are mainly old and familiar; nor is there anything new in the general use I shall make of them. If there shall be any novelty, it will be in the mode of presenting the facts, and the inferences and observations following that presentation. In his speech last aiitmnn, at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in "The Neiv York Times," Senator Douglas said : ''Our fathers, when they framed the Government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now." I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. I so adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting point for a discussion between Uojiublicans and that wing of Democracy headed by Senator Doughis. It simply leaves the inquiry: ''What was the understanding those fathers had of llie (juestion mentioned F" Wliat is the frame of Government under which we liver Speech of Abraham Lincoln The answer must be: "The Constitution of the United States." That Constitution consists of the original, framed in 1787 (and under which the present Government first went into operation), and twelve sub- sequently framed amendments, the first ten of which were framed in 1789. Who were our fathers that framed the Constitu- tion^ I suppose the "thirty-nine" who signed the orio-inal instrument may be fairly called our fathers whS framed that part of the present Government. It is almost exactlv true to say they framed it, and it is altogether true to say they fairly represented the opinion and sentiment of the whole nation at that time. Their names, being famihar to nearly all, and accessible to quite all, need not now be repeated. _ I take these "thirtv-nine," for the present, as being "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live. ' ' What is the question which, according to the text, those fathers understood just as well, and even better than we do now! It is this: Does the proper division ot local trom federal authoritv, or anything in the Constitution, for- bid our Federal Government to control as to slavery in our Federal Territories! Upon this, Douglas holds the affirmative, and Kepub- licans the negative. This affirmative and denial form an issue; and this issue— this question— is precisely what the text declares our fathers understood better than w^e. , . , . ,, Let us now inquire whether the "thirty-mne, oi anv of them, ever acted upon this question; and it they did, how they acted upon it— how they expressed that better understanding. In 1784— three years before the Constitution— the United States then owning the Northwestern Terri- torv and no other-the Congress of the Confederation Speech of Ahraliam Lincoln liad before tliem tlie question of proliibiting slavery in that Territory; and four of the ''thirty-nine" who afterward framed the Constitution were in that Con- gress, and voted on that question. Of these, Roger Slierman, Thomas Mifflin, and Hugh WiUiamson voted for the prohibition — thus showing that, in their under- standing, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the Federal Gov- ernment to control as to slavery in federal territory. The other of the four — James McHenry — voted against the prohibition, showing that, for some cause, he thought it improper to vote for it. In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the Convention was in session framing it, and while the Northwestern Territory still was the only territory owned by the United States — the same question of prohibiting slavery in the territory again came before the Congress of the Confederation; and three more of the "thirty-nine" who afterward signed the Con- stitution, were in that Congress and voted on the ques- tion. They were William Blount, William Few and Abraham Baldwin ; and they all voted for the prohibi- tion — thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority nor anything else, properly forbids the Federal Groverinnent to con- trol as to slavery in federal territory. This time the prohibition became a law, being part of what is now well known as the Ordinance of '87. The question of federal control of slavery in the territories, seems not to have been directly before the Convention which framed the original Constitution; and hence it is not n^corded that the "thirty-nine" or any of them, while engaged on that instrument, expressed any opinion on that precise question. In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution, an act was passed to enforce the Ordi- n.'uico of '87, iiif'lndiiig 1he prohibition of slavery in Speech of Abraham Lincoln the Northwestern Territory, The bill for this act was reported by one of the " thirt3^-nine, " Thomas Fitz- simmons, then a member of the House of Representa- tives from Pennsylvania. It went throno-h all its sta.^-es without a word of opposition, and finally passed both branches without yeas and nays, which is equiva- lent to an unanimous passage. In this Congress there were sixteen of the ''thirty -nine" fathers wiio framed the original Constitution. They w^ere John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman, Wm. S. Johnson, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Thos. Fitzsimmons, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, William Patterson, (reorge Clymer, Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll, James Madison. This shows that, in their understanding, no line di'sndinsr local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, pronerly forbade Congress to pro- hibit slavery in the fed'^ral territory; else both their fidelity to correct principle, and their oath to support the Constitution, would have constrained them to opnose the prohibition. Airain, George Washington, another of the "thirty- nine," was then President of the United States, and, as such, approved and signed the bill, thus completing its validitv as a law, and thus shomng that, in his understanding, no line dividing: local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territorv. No g-reat while after the adoption of the original Constitution, North Carolina ceded to the Federal Government thp country now constituting the State of Tennessee ; and a few years later Georgia ceded that which now constitutes the States of Mississippi and Alabama. In both deeds of cession it was made a con- dition bv the cediner States that the Federal Govern- ment should not prohibit slavery in the ceded country. Speech of Abraham Lincoln Besides this, slavery was tlien actually in the ceded country. Under these circumstances, Congress, on taking" charge of these countries, did not absolutely prohibit slavery with them. But they did interfere with it — take control of it — even there, to a certain extent. In 1798, Congress organized the Territory of Mississippi. In the act of organization they prohibited the bringing of slaves into the Territory, from any place without the United States, by fine, and giving freedom to slaves so brought. This act passed both branches of Congress without yeas and nays. In that Congress were three of the " thirty -nine " wdio framed the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, George Read and Abraham Baldwin. They all, prob- ably, voted for it. Certainly they would have placed their opposition to it upon record, if, in their under- standing, any line dividing local from federal author- ity, or anything in the Constitation, properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territory. In 1803, the Federal Government purchased the Louisiana country. Our former territorial acquisi- tions came from certain of our own States; but this Louisiana country was acquired from a foreign nation. In 1804, Congress gave a territorial organization to that part of it which now constitutes the State of Louisiana. New Orleans, lying within that part, was an old and comparatively large city. There were other considerable towns and settlements, and slavery was extensively and thoroughly intermingled with the people. Congress did not, in the Territorial Act, pro- hi])it slavery; but they did interfere with it — take control of it — in a more marked and extensive v>'ay than they did in the case of Mississippi. The sub- stance of the provision therein made, in relation to slaves, was: First. That no slave should be imported into the Speech of Abraham Lincoln territory from foreign parts. Second. That no slave should be carried into it who had been imported into the United States since the first day of May, 1798. Third. That no slave shonld be carried into it except by the owner, and for his own nse as a settler; the penalty in all the cases being a fine npon the viola- tor of the law, and freedom to the slave. This act also was passed without yeas and nays. In the Congress which passed it, there were two of the * ' thirty-nine. ' ' They were Abraham Baldwin and Jon- athan Dayton. As stated in the case of Mississippi, it is probable they voted for it. They would not have allowed it to pass without recording their opposition to it, if, in their understanding, it violated either the line proper dividing local from federal authority or any provision of the Constitution. In 1819-20, came and passed the Missouri question. Many votes were taken, by yeas and nays, in both branches of Co'Ugress, upon the various phases of the general question. Two of the ''thirty-nine" — Rufus King and Charles Pinckney — were members of that Congress. Mr. King steadily voted for slavery pro- hibition and against all compromises, while Mr. Pinck- ney as steadily voted against slavery prohibition and against all compromises. By this Mr. King showed that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, T\^as violated by Congress prohibiting slavery in fed- eral territory; while Mr. Pinckney, by his votes, shov.'ed that in his understanding there was some suffi- cient reason for opposing such prohibition in that ease. The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the "thirty-nine," or of any of them, upon the direct issue, which I have been able to discover. To enumerate the persons who thus acted, as being four in 1784, three in 1787, seventeen in 1789, three in Speech of Abrahmn Lincoln 1798, two in 1804, and two in 1819-20— there would be thirtj-^-one of them. But this would be counting John Langdon, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus King, and George Read, each twice, and Abraham Baldwin four times. The true number of those of the "thirty- nine" whom I have shown to have acted upon the ques- tion, wdiicli, by the text they understood better than we, is twenty-three, leaving sixteen not shown to have acted upon it in any way. Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our "thirty- nine ' ' fathers who framed the Government under which we live, who have, upon their official responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the very question which the text affirms they "understood just as well, and even better than we do now;" and twenty-one of them — a clear majority of the whole "thirty-nine" — so acting upon it as to make them guilty of gross polit- ical impropriety, and wailful perjury, if, in their understanding, any proper division between local and federal authority, or anything in the Constitution they had made themselves, and sworn to support, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories. Thus the twenty-one acted; and, as actions speak louder than words, so actions under such responsibility speak still louder. Two of tlie twenty-three voted against Congres- sional prohibition of slavery in the federal territories, in the instances in which they acted upon the question. But for what reasons they so voted is not known. They may have done so because they thought a proper di^d- sion of local from federal authority, or some provision or principle of the Constitution, stood in the way; or they may, without any such question, have voted ?i gainst the prohil)ition, on what appeared to them to be sufficient grounds of expediency. No one who has sworii to support tlie Constitution, can conscientiously vote for wliat he understands to be an unconstitutional Speech of Abraham Lincoln measure, however expedient he may think it ; but one may and ought to vote against a measure wliich he deems constitutional, if, at the same time, he deems it inexpedient. It, therefore, would be unsafe to set down even the two who voted against the prohibition, as having done so because, in their understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or any- thing in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Govern- ment to control as to slavery in federal territory. The remaining sixteen of the "thirty-nine," so far as I have discovered, have left no record of their understanding upon the direct question of federal con- trol of slavery in the federal territories. But there is much reason to believe that their understanding upon that question would not have appeared different from that of their twenty-three compeers, had it been mani- fested at all. For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I have purposely omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested, by any person, however distin- guished, other than the thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution; and, for the same reason, I have also omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any of the " thirt^^-nine " even, on any other phase of the general question of slavery. If we should look into their acts and declarations on those other phases, as the foreign slave-trade, and the morality and policy of slavery generally, it would appear to us that on the direct question of federal con- trol of slavery in federal territories, the sixteen, if they had acted at all, would probably have acted just as the twenty-three did. Among that sixteen were several of the most noted anti-slavery men of those times — as Dr. Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris — while there was not one now known to have been otherwise, unless it may be John Rutledge, of South Carolina. Speech of Abraham Lincoln The sum of the whole is, that of onr ''thirty-nine" fathers who framed the original Constitution, twenty- one — a clear majority of the whole — certainly under- stood that no proper division of local from federal authority noT any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control slavery in the fed- eral territories, while all the rest probably had the same understanding. Such, unquestionably, was the understanding of our fathers who framed the original Constitution; and the text affirms that they under- stood the question better than we. But, so far, I have been considering the understand- ing of the question manifested by the framers of the original Constitution. In and by the original instru- inent, a mode was provided for amending it; and, as I have already stated, the present frame of Govern- ment under which we live consists of that original, and twelve amendatory articles framed and adopted since. Those wdio now insist that federal control of slavery in federal territories violates the Constitution, point us to the provisions which thev supDOse it thus vio- lates; and, as I understand, they all fix upon provi- sions in these amendntory articles, nnd not in the origi- nal instrument, Tlie SuDreme Court, in the Dred Sco'tt case, plant themselves upon the fifth amendment, which provides that "no person shall be deprived of prop- erty without due process of law ;" while Senator Doug- Ins and his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the tenth amendment, providing that "the powers not PTnnted bv the Constitution, are reserved to the States re^nectively, and to the people." Now, it so happens that these amendments were fr-nmed by the first Con«*rPss which sat under the Con- stitution — the identical Consrress which passed the act alreadv mentioned, enforcino- the prohibition of slav- erv in the northwestorn territorv. Not oidv was it the same Congress, but thev were the identical, same indi- 9* Speech of Abraham LincoUi vidiial men wlio, at the same session, and at tlie same time within the session, had under consideration, and in progress toward maturity, these Constitutional amendments, and this act prohibiting slavery in all the territory the nation then owned. The Constitutional amendments were introduced before, and passed after the act enforcing the Ordinance of '87 ; so that during the whole pendency of the act to enforce the Ordinance, the Constitutional amendments were also pending. That Congress, consisting in all of seventy-six mem- bers, including sixteen of the framers of the original Constitution, as before stated, were preeminently our fathers who framed that part of the Government under which we live, which is now claimed as forbidding the Federal Government to control slavery in the federal territories. Is it not a little presumptuous in any one at this day to affirm that the two things which that Congress delib- erately framed, and carried to maturity at the same time, are absolutely inconsistent with each other? And does not such affirmation become impudently al)surd when coupled with the other affirmation, from the same mouth, that those who did the two things alleged to be inconsistent understood whether thej^ really w^ere inconsistent better than we — better than he who affirms that they are inconsistent? It is surely safe to assume that the ''thirty-nine" frnmers of the original Constitution, and the seventy- six members of the Congress which framed the amend- ments thereto, taken together, do certainly include those who may be fairly called "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." And so assuming, I defy any man to show that any one of tliem ever, in his whole life, declared that, in his under- standing, any proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slaverv in the Speech of Abraham Lincoln federal territories. I go a step further. I defy any one to show that any living man in the whole world ever did, prior to the beginning of the present century (and I might almost say prior to the beginning of the last half of the present century), declare that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from fed- eral authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories. To those who now so declare, I give, not only '^our fathers who framed the Govern- ment under which we live," but wdth them all other living men ^^dthin the century in which it was framed, among whom to search, and they shall not be able to find the evidence of a single man agreeing ^^^.th them. Now, and here, let me guard a little against being misunderstood. I do not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did. To do so, would be to discard all the lights of current experi- ence — to reject all progress — all improvement. What I do say is, that if we would surtplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we should do so upon e^ddence so conclusive, and argument so clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand; and most surely not in a case whereof we ourselves declare they understood the nuf^stion better than we. If any man, at this day, sincerely believes that a proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Govern- ment to control as to slavery in the federal territories, ho is right to say so, and to enforce his position by all truthful evidence and fair argument which he can. But he has no riglit to mislead others, who have less access to history and less leisure to study it, into the ffdse belief that ''our fathers, who framed the Govern- ment under which we live," were of the same opinion —thus substituting falsehood and deception for truth- Speech of Abraham Lincoln fill evidence and fair argument. If any man at this day sincerely believes ''onr fathers, who framed the Government under which we live." used and applied principles, in other cases, which ought to have led them to understand that a proper division of local from federal authority or some part of the Constitu- tion, forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories, he is right to say so. But he should, at the same time, brave the responsi- bility of declaring that, in his opinion, he understands their principles better than they did themselves; and especially should he not shirk that responsibility by asserting that they ''understood the question just as well, and even better, than we do now." But enough. Let all who believe that ''our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better than we do now, ' ' speak as they spoke, and act as they acted upon it. This is all Republicans ask — all Repub- licans desire — in relatioai to slavery. As those fathers marked it, so let it be again marked, as an evil not to be extended, but to be tolerated and protected only because of and so far as its actual presence among us makes that toleration and protection a necessity. Let all the guaranties those fathers gave it, be, not grudg- ingly, but fully and fairly, maintained. For this Republicans contend, and with this, so far as T know or believe, they will be content. And now, if they would listen — as I suppose thej^ will not — I would address a few words to the southern people. I v\^ould say to them: You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just people; and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any other people. Still, when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us as rep- tiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You Speech of Ahraham Lincoln will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to "Black Republicans." In all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of "Black Republican- ism" as the first thing to be attended to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable pre- requisite — license, so to speak — among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all. Now, can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify. You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the burden of proof is moon you. You produce your proof; and what is it? Why, that our party has no existence in your section — gets no votes in your section. The fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If it does, then in case we should, without change of principle, begin to get votes in your section, we should thereby cease to be sec- tional. You cannot escape this conclusion; and yet, are you willins: to abide by it? If you are, you will r)robably soon find that we have ceased to be sectional, for v.'e shall get votes in your sectioTi this very vear. You will then begin to discover, as the truth nlainlv is, that your proof does not touch the issue. The fact thnt we get no votes in your section is a fact of your making, and not of ours. And if there be fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains so until you show that we repel you by some wrong principle or practice. If we do repel you by auv wrong principle or practice, the fault is ours; but this brings you to where vou ought to have started — to a discussion of Ihe riirht or wrong of our principle. If our principle, nut in practice, woidd wrong vour section for the bene- fit of our'i, or for a]iy olher object, then our principle, speech of Abraham Lincoln and we with it, are sectional, and are jnstly opposed and denounced as such. Meet us, then, on the question of wdiether our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section; and so meet it as if it were possible that something may be said on our side. Do you accept the challenge 1 No ? Then you really believe that the principle which our fathers who framed the Govern- ment under which we live thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again and again, upon their official oaths, is, in fact so clearly wrong as to demand your condemnation without a moment's consideration. Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warn- ing against sectional parties given by Washington in his Farewell Address. Less than eight years before Washington gave that warning, he had, as President of the United States approved and signed an act of Congress, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory, which act embodied the policy of the Government upon that subject, up to and at the very moment he penned that warning; and about one year after he penned it he wrote Lafayette that he considered that prohibition a wise measure, express- ing in the same connection his hope that we should some time h^ive a confederacy of free States. Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism hns since arisen upon this same subject, is that warn- ing a weapon in your hands against us, or in our hands against you? Could Washington himself speak, would he cast the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon you who repudiate it I We respect that warning of Washington, and we commend it to you, together with his example pointing to the right application of it. But you say you are conservative — eminently con- servative — while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Ts it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and Speech of Abraham Lincoln untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by our fathers who framed the Government under which we live; while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You have considerable variety of new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denounc- ing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave-trade; some for a Congres- sional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Con- gress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits ; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories throu<>-h the Judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantas- tically called "Popular Sovereignty;" but never a man among yon in favor of federal prohibition of slav- ery in federal territories, according to the practice of our fathers who framed the Government under which we live. Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and vour chnrire of destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations. Again, vou say we have made the slaverv ouestion more Drominent than it formerly was. We denv it. We admit thnt it is more prominent, but we deny that wo m.nde if so. Tt was not we, but you, who discarded the old policy of the fathers. We resisted, and still resist, your innovation; and thence comes the greater nrominence of the question. Would you have that ouoslion rodnced to its former proportions? Go back to that old pobVv. What has been will be aorain, under Iho same conditioDS. If you would have the peace of Speech of Ahraham Lincoln tlie old times, re-adopt tlie precepts and polic}' of the old times. You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it; and what is your proof f Harper's Ferry! John Brown!! John Brown was no Republican ; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his Harper's Ferry enterprise. If any member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know it or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are inexcusable to not designate the man, and prove the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable to assert it, and especially to persist in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make the proof. You need not be told that persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true, is simply malicious slander. Some of you admit that no Republican designedly aided or encouraged the Harper's Ferry affair; but still insist that our doctrines and declarations neces- sarih" lead to such results. We do not believe it. We know we hold to no doctrine, and make no declarations, which were not held to and made by our fathers who framed the Government under which we live. You never dealt fairly by us in relation to this affair. When it occurred, some important State elections were near at hand, and you were in evident glee ^vith the belief that, by chargin.g the blame upon us, you could get an advantage of us in those elections. The elections came, and your expectations were not quite fulfilled. Every Republican man knew that, as to himself at least, your charge was a slander, and he was not much inclined by it to cast his vote in your favor. Repub- lican doctrines and declarations are accompanied with a continual protest against any interference whatever with your slaves, or with you about your slaves. Sure- ly, this does not encourage them to revolt. True, we do, in common with our fathers, who framed the Gov- ernment under which we live, declare our belief that Speech of Ahraliam Lincoln slavery is wrong ; but the slaves do not bear us declare even tliis. For anything we say or do, the slaves would scarcely know there is a Republican party. I believe they would not, in fact, generally know it but for your misrepresentations of us, in their hearing. In your political contests among yourselves, each faction charges the other with sympathy with Black Republi- canism ; and then, to give point to the charge, defines Black Republicanism to simply be insurrection, blood and thunder among the slaves. Slave insurrections are no more common now than they Vv^'ere before the Republican party was organized. What induced the Southampton insurrection, twenty- eight years ago, in which, at least, three times as many lives were lost as at Harper's Ferry? You can scarce- ly stretch your very elastic fancy to the conclusion that Southampton was got up by Black Repulilicanism. In the present state of things in the United States, I do not think a general, or even a very extensive slave insurrection, is possible. The indispensable concert of action cannot be attained. The slaves have no means of rapid communication ; nor can incendiary free men, black or white, supply it. The explosive materials are everywhere in parcels; but there neither are, nor can be supnlied, the indispensable connecting trains. Mucli is said by southern people about the affection of slaves for their masters and mistresses; and a part of it, at least, is true. A plot for an uprising could scarcely be devised and communicated to twenty indi- viduals before some one of them, to save the life of a fnvorite master or mistress, would divul^re it. This is Ihe rule; and the slave-revolution in Hayti was not an exception to it. but a case occurring under -neculiar circumstances. The gunpowder-plot of British his- tory, though not connected with slaves, was more in point. In that caso, only about twenty were admitted to llie secrot ; and yet one of thorn, in his anxiety to Speech of Abraham Lincoln save a friend, betrayed the plot to that friend, and, by consequence, averted the calamity. Occasional poison- ings from the kitchen, and open or stealthy assassina- tions in the field, and local revolts extending to a score or so, will continue to occur as the natural results of slavery; but no general insurrection of slaves as I think, can happen in this country for a long time. Whoever much fears, or much hopes, for such an event, will be alike disappointed. In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, ''It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensi- bly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up." Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of emancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia; and, as to the power of eman- cir)ntion, I speak of the slaveholding States only. The Federal Government, however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the extension of the institu- tion — the power to insure that a slave insurrection shall never occur on any American soil which is now free from slavery. John Brown's effort was peculiar. It was not a slave insurrection. It was an attempt by white men to gf^t up a revolt among slaves, in which the slaves refused to participate. In fact, it was so absurd that the slaves, with all their ignorance, saw plainly enough that it could not succeed. That affair, in its philoso- phy, corresponds with the many attempts, related in history, at the assassination of kings and emperors. An entliusiast broods over the oppression of a people till he fancies himself commissioned by Heaven to liberate them. He ventures the attempt, which ends Speech of Ahraliam Lincoln in little else than in his own execution. Orsini's attempt on Lonis Napoleon, and John Brown's attempt at Harper's Ferry were, in their philosophy, precisely the same. The eagerness to cast blame on old England in the one case, and on New England in the other, does not disprove the sameness of the two things. And how mnch wonld it avail you, it yon could, by the use of John Brown, Helper's book, and the like, break up the Republican organization 1 Human action can be modified to some extent, but human nature can- not be changed. There is a judgment and a feeling against slavery in this nation, which cast at least a million and a half of votes. You cannot destroy that judirment and feeling — that sentiment — by breaking up the political organization which rallies around it. You can scarcely scatter and disperse an army which has been formed into order in the face of your heaviest fire, but if you could, how much would you gain by forcing the sentiment which created it out of the peace- ful channel of the ballot box, into some other channel? What would that other channel probably be? Would the number of John Browns be lessened or enlarged by the operation! But you will break up the Union rather than submit to a denial of your Constitutional rights. That has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would be palliated, if not fully justified, were we proposing, by the mere force of numbers, to deprive you of some right, plainly written down in the Constitution. But we are proposing no such thing. When 3^ou make these declarations, you have a spe- cific and well-understood allusion to an assumed Con- stitutional right of yours, to take slaves into the fed- eral territories, and to hold them there as property. But no such right is specifically written in the Consti- tution. That instrument is literally silent about any such right. We, on the contrary, den}^ that such a Speech of Abraham Lincoln right has any existence in the Constitution, even by implication. Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is, that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to con- strue and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events. This, plainy stated, is your language to us. Perhaps you ^\dll say the Supreme Court has decided the dis- puted Constitutional question in your favor. Not quite so. But waiving the lawyer's distinction between dic- tum and decision, the Courts have decided the question for you in a sort of way. The Courts have substan- tially said, it is your Constitutional right to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. When I say the decision was made in a sort of way, I mean it was made in a divided Court by a bare major- ity of the Judges, and they not quite agreeing with one another in the reasons for making it; that it is so made as that its avowed supporters disagree with one another about its meaning; and that it was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact — the state- ment in the opinion that ''the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Con- stitution. ' ' An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of property in a slave is not distinctly and expressly affirmed in it. Bear in mind the Judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that such right is impliedly affirmed in the Constitution ; but they pledge their veracity that it is distinctly and expressly affirmed there— "distinctly" that is, not mingled with anything else— "expressly" that is, in words meaning just that, without the aid of any inference, and sus- ceptible of no other meaning. speech of Ahraham Lincoln If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that sncli right is affirmed in the instrument by implication, it would be open to others to show that neither the word ''slave" nor "Slavery" is to be found in the Constitution, nor the word "property" even, in any connection with language alluding to the things, slave, or slavery, and that wherever in that instrument the slave is alluded to, he is called a "person;" and wher- ever his master's legal right in relation to him is alluded to, it is spoken of as "service or labor due," as a "debt" payable in service or labor. Also, it would be open to show, by contemporaneous history, that this mode of alluding to slaves and slavery, instead of speaking of them, was employed on purpose to exclude from the Constitution the idea that there could be property in man. To show all this is easy and certain. When this obvious mistake of the Judges shall be brought to their notice, is it not reasonable to expect that they will withdraw the mistaken statement, and reconsider the conclusion based upon it! And then it is to be remembered that "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live" — the men who made the Constitution — decided this same Constitutional question in our favor, long ago — decided it without a division among themselves, when making the decision ; mtliout division among themselves about the meaning of it after it was made, and so far as any evidence is left, without basing it upon any mistaken statement of facts. Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this Government, unless such a court decision as yours is shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican President. In that supposed event, you say, you will Speech of Abraham Lincoln destroy the Union ; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be npon us ! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer ! ' ' To be sure, what the robber demanded of me — my money — was my own ; and I had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote is my own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in prin- ciple. A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony, one with another. Let us Bepublicans do our part to have it so. Even though much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. Even though the southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly can. Judging by all they say and do, and by the subject and nature of their contro- versy with us, let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy them? Will they be satisfied if the Territories be uncondi- tionally surrendered to them? We know they will not. Tn all their present complaints against us, the Terri- tories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insur- rections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We so know because we know we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation. The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Sim- ply this: We must not only let them alone, but we Speech of Abraham Lincoln must, somehow, convince tliem that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trj'ing to convince them, from the very beginning of our organization, but with no suc- cess. In all our platforms and speeches we have con- stantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them. Those natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly — done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated — we must place ourselves avowedly mth them. Doug- las 's new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free-State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us. I am ouite aware they do not state their case pre- cisely in this way. Most of them would probably say to us, ''Let us alone, do nothing to us, and say what you please about slavery." But we do let them alone — have never disturbed them — so that, after all, it is what we say, which dissatisfies them. They will con- tinue to accuse us of doinor, until we cease saying. T am also aware they have not, as vet, in terms, demanded the overthrow of our Free-State Constitu- tions. Yet those Constitutions declare the wrong of slavery, with more solemn emphasis, than do all other sayings against it; and when all these other sayings Sijeecli of Abraham Lincoln shall have been silenced, the overthrow of these Con- stitutions will be demanded, and nothing be lefl to resist the demand. It is nothing to the contrary, that they do not demand the whole of this just now. Demanding what they do, and for the reason they do, they can voluntarily stop nowhere short of this con- summation. Holding, as they do, that slavery is morally right, and socially elevating, they cannot cease to demand a full national recognition of it, as a legal right, and a social blessing. Nor can we justifiably withhold this, on any ground save our conviction that slavery is wrong. If slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, and constitutions against it, are themselves wrong, and should be silenced, and swept away. If it is right, we cannot justly object to its nationality — its universality; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist upon its extension — its enlarge- ment. All they ask, we could readily grant, if we thought slavery right; all we ask, they could as readily grant, if they thought it wrong. Their think- ing it right, and our thinking it wrong, is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition, as being right; but, thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? Can we cast our votes Mdth their view, and against our own? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we do this? AVrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to lot it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the National Territories, and to overrun us here in these Free States! If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances OCf' Speech of Abraham Lincoln wherewitli we are so industriously plied and belabored — contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man — such as a policy of "don't care" on a question about which all true men do care — such as Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance — such as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said, and undo what Washington did. Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by men- aces of detruction to the Government, nor of dungeons to ourselves. Let us have faith that right makes MIGHT, and in that FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT. H75 75 561 A <. <, .0 ,^^ .Hq ^' .^^ ^«<^° _^'^. V .-^q^ ^^ ^ -' ^>^my i-" V, v^ .r. .-b^^ .:^.:'. y^^ ^^-V V ^ ?.^-n^. ^..^^ ^ .V^. ■^ * «- . -I • a' •J^^ , « o .0 1^ . - o. ^. ,?^ <. ^-'^.^^ ^J^c^ ,40, sV. .^ ^- V ((^^ .S^. ^*^-'^. ^. .^ u ,/.. ?y"-^<^. °'""-'''"- ^'% '-111;.' .^^'■^-^, v^v3i.^:-- .^^^-^. .* .f "^. ^ o / V <-^' ^ C) * - - c" . 0^ '^_ •■ a\' --„ ^-^ '--^ A^ ^-^ '"•'' \^ ..^^^*&^\ /^is&\ .-^^^*'.\ /^^y^' ' ■^"^ . r-T-^, * ' -"^ '^'' '*^ o ^^ ,^^^ .* ^* .• " o « ri» , V ^^ v%3>:-.- ^,^^' \"mT\^'^ \ '-^s /\ "^i^.- .' ,*-\. ^ A o A <^' .^.|^; ^0 .0 r'v. O S^ . - -P r-*^ ^ , .-4. .<^ . .^ INDIANA Sif^* N.MANCHESTER, B-^ •-,:.. o . '1/ ••:■.' ■'y ♦ av '^ . ^ A .^(m^\ A^ c°-=« '^. ** 0^' - ^ **a>',/r/^^ " ^