457 .92 1898 GIFT OF tat:, 1 of Creor^e D. ^~ ;i o^ P ^ o LITTLE MASTERPIECES Little Masterpieces Edited by Bliss Perry ABRAHAM LINCOLN EARLY SPEECHES SPRINGFIELD SPEECH COOPER UNION SPEECH INAUGURAL ADDRESSES GETTYSBURG ADDRESS SELECTED LETTERS LINCOLN S LOST SPEECH NEW YORK DOUBLEDAY & McCLURE CO. 1898 Copyright, 1894, by JOHN G. NlCOLAY AND JOHN HAY. Copyright, 1898, by DOUBLEDAY & MCCLURE CO. Acknowledgment is due The Century Co, for per. mission to use selections from the text of their complete edition of the Works of Abra ham Lincoln, edited by John G. Nicolay and John Hay. " He knew to bide his time, And can his fame abide, Still patient in his simple faith sublime, Till the wise years decide. Great captains, with their guns and drums, Disturb our judgment for the hour, But at last silence comes ; These all are gone, and, standing like a tower, Our children shall behold his fame, The kindly-earnest, brave, foreseeing man, Sagacious, patient, dreading praise, not blame, New birth of our new soil, the first Ameri can." LOWELL, Commemoration Ode. Introdiiction Editor s Introduction " It is not too much to say of him [Lincoln] that he is among the greatest masters of prose ever produced by the English race." The {London} Spectator. IT is said that Nathaniel Hawthorne was once asked the secret of his style. That consummate writer replied no doubt with one of his in scrutable smiles " It is the result of a great deal of practice. It comes from the desire to tell the simple truth as honestly and vividly as I can." The flawless perfection of Lincoln s style in his noblest utterances eludes a final analysis as completely as the exquisite pages of our great romancer, yet in striving to under stand some of the causes of that perfection we may use the hint which Hawthorne has given us. Lincoln had " a great deal of practice" in the art of speech long before his debates against Douglas made him known to the nation : end less talks in country stores, endless jests in frontier taverns, twenty years of pleading in the circuit courts, twenty-five years of constant political discussion. His law partner has noted his incessant interest in the precise meaning of words. His reputation for clear statement to vii Introduction a jury was the result of his passion for putting ideas into language " plain enough for any boy to comprehend. " Lincoln s mind worked slow ly, and he was long in finding the words that exactly expressed his thoughts, but when he had once hit upon the word or phrase he never forgot it. " He read less and thought more than any man in the country," says Herndon with a sort of pride, and it should be remem bered that throughout his gradual development as a master of his mother tongue he was pre occupied, not with words for their own sake, but solely with words as the garb of ideas. Furthermore, Lincoln s mental characteristics illustrate with singular force the remark of Hawthorne that style is the result of a desire to tell the simple truth as honestly and vividly as one can. He was " Honest Abe ;" not indeed so innocent and frank and unsophisticated as many people believed ; not a man who told all he knew, by any means ; but yet a man essen tially fair-minded. He looked into the nature of things. He read human nature dispassion ately. A man of intense feeling, he was never theless, in mature life at least, without senti mentality. He was not fooled by phrases. As a debater, he made no attempt to mislead his audience ; as President, when he found frank conversation impossible, he told a humorous story of more or less remote bearing upon the subject in hand. He kept inviolate his mental integrity. And without integrity of mind the viii Introduction would-be master of speech becomes a mere jug gler with words. In the letter to Thuiiow Weed concerning the Second Inaugural Ad dress, Lincoln described that memorable utter ance as " a truth which I thought needed to be told." No description could be more noble. That Lincoln s gift of humor added much to the vividness and homely naturalness of his style will not be questioned. But the connec tion between fair-mindedness and humor is not always remembered. The man of true humor not, of course, the mere joker or wit sees all sides of a proposition. He recognizes instinc tively its defects of proportion, its incongruities. It is the great humorists who have drawn the truest pictures of human life, because their humor was a constant corrective against one- sidedness. Lincoln s mind had the impartial ity, the freedom from prejudice, the flexibility of sympathy, which belongs to the humorist alone. It has sometimes been argued that his fond ness for story-telling showed a deficient com mand of language ; that knowing his inability to express his ideas directly, he conveyed them indirectly by an anecdote. It would probably be nearer the truth to say that the stories were a proof of his understanding of the limitations of language. He divined the boundaries of ex pression through formal speech, and knew when a picture, a parable, would best serve his turn. ix Introduction As great responsibilities came to rest upon him, as the harassing problems of our national life pressed closer and closer, the lonely Presi dent grew more clear-eyed and certain of his course. The politician was lost in the states man. His whole life, indeed, was a process of enfranchisement from selfish and narrow views. He stood at last on a serener height than other men of his epoch, breathing an ampler air, per ceiving more truly the eternal realities. And his style changed as the man changed. What he saw and felt at his solitary final post he has in part made known, through a slowly perfected instrument of expression. So transparent is the language of the Gettysburg Address and of the Second Inaugural that one may read through them, as through a window, Lincoln s wise and gentle and unselfish heart. Other praise is needless. The selections included in this volume are designed to illustrate the steady development of Lincoln s literary power. They begin with a few specimens of his earlier style, which was direct, forceful, and manly, but not markedly better than that of many of his contemporaries. The famous " Lost Speech" of May 29, 1856, has been reprinted in the Appendix. As it does not present Lincoln s exact language throughout, it could scarcely be placed with the other selections, but its personal and historical interest is so great that lovers of Lincoln will be glad to have it preserved in convenient form. Introduction With the Springfield speech of June 16, 1858, Lincoln entered upon a new phase of his career. Its careful enunciation of a great political prin ciple made it the turning-point of a memorable campaign. The significance of its opening paragraph, in particular, has been discussed in the prefatory note to the speech itself, and need not be repeated here. The space-limit of the volumes in this series forbids the presentation of any of the entire speeches of the joint debates with Douglas, and so closely inter-related, so full of allusion and cross reference are all of those speeches that detached paragraphs would give little conception of the qualities displayed by either of the debaters. The Cooper Union speech of February 25, 1860, however, goes over much of the ground of the Douglas de bates. The remaining speeches in the volume belong to Lincoln s career as President. They range from the most informal addresses to the In augurals. The Emancipation Proclamation is also included. The letters exhibit still another side of Lincoln s strange and fascinating indi viduality. In compression and clear-cut force, in their humor and homely pathos, in their shrewd knowledge of character, these letters are among the most extraordinary ever written. While they afford new glimpses into Lincoln s nature, it is true of them, as it is of his other writings, that they express without explaining the secret of his personality. One closes a vol- xi Introduction ume of Lincoln s addresses and letters with something of the feeling that Walt Whitman has uttered with regard to Lincoln s portraits : " None of the artists or pictures has caught the deep though subtle and indirect expression of this man s face. There is something else there." BLISS PERRY. CONTENTS PAGE Editor s Introduction v Speeches Selected The Whigs and the Mexican War . 3 Notes for a Law Lecture . . 7 Fragment on Slavery . . .11 The Dred Scott Decision and the Declaration of Independence . 13 Springfield Speech . . .23 Cooper Union Speech . . - 37 Farewell at Springfield . . 70 Speech in Independence Hall, Phila delphia . . . 71 First Inaugural Address . . 74 Emancipation Proclamation . . 90 Gettysburg Address . 94 Speech to i66th Ohio Regiment . 96 Response to a Serenade . . 98 Reply to Committee on Electoral Count 101 Second Inaugural Address . . 102 Letters To McClellan .... 109 To Seward . . . . in To Greeley . . . 113 To the Workingmen of Manchester . 115 To Hooker . . . .118 To Burnside . . . .120 To Edward Everett . . .121 To Grant . . . .122 To Mrs. Bixby . . . .123 To Thurlow Weed . . .124 Appendix Lincoln s Lost Speech . . . 127 xiii Selected Speeches Selections from Lincoln s Speeches and Letters The Whigs and the Mexican War July 27, 1848 [An extract from a speech delivered in the House of Representatives while Lincoln was a Congressman from Illinois. The speech was in support of General Taylor, the Whig candidate for the Presidency. Lincoln had opposed Presi dent Polk ; s declaration of war against Mexico, had introduced resolutions of inquiry on that subject, and made a strong speech on Jan uary 12, 1848, explaining his own attitude. The speech of July 27 was full of wit, at times more caustic than refined. The extract here presented sums up clearly Lincoln s vie\vs as to the Mexican War, and is a good example of his best parliamentary style at this stage of his career.] BUT, as General Taylor is, par excellence, the hero of the Mexican War, and as you Demo crats 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, according as one may understand the term " oppose the war." If to say " the war was unnecessarily and unconsti- 3 Abraham Lincoln tutionally commenced by the President" be op posing the war, then the Whigs have very gen erally 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, unprovok- ing 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 fell 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 4 The Whigs and Mexican War 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 com parison between the lion-hearted Whigs and the Democrats who fought there. On other occasions, and among the lower officers and privates on that occasion, I doubt not the pro portion was different. I wish to do justice to all. I think of all those brave men as Ameri cans, 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 distinc tion which you cannot 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 probably 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 5 Abraham Lincoln 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 Presi dent. 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 termina tion by the most vigorous and energetic opera tions, without inquiry about its justice, or any thing else connected with it. Mr. Speaker, let our Democratic friends be comforted with the assurance that we are con tent with our position, content with our com pany, 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 anx iety they have on our account. Notes for a Law Lecture July i, 1850 [These notes show Lincoln s power of straight forward statement and his good sense. They are of additional interest as indicating his atti tude toward professional success.] I AM not an accomplished lawyer. I find quite as much material for a lecture in those points wherein I have failed as in those wherein I have been moderately successful. The lead ing rule for the lawyer, as for the man of every other calling, is diligence. Leave nothing for to-morrow which can be done to-day. Never let your correspondence fall behind. Whatever piece of business you have in hand, before stop ping, do all the labor pertaining to it which can then be done. When you bring a common-law suit, if you have the facts for doing so, write the declaration at once. If a law point be in volved, examine the books, and note the au thority you rely on upon the declaration itself, where you are sure to find it when wanted. The same of defenses and pleas. In business not likely to be litigated, ordinary collection cases, foreclosures, partitions, and the like, 7 Abraham Lincoln make all examinations of titles, and note them, and even draft orders and decrees in advance. This course has a triple advantage ; it avoids omissions and neglect, saves your labor when once done, performs the labor out of court when you have leisure, rather than in court when you have not. Extemporaneous speaking should be practised and cultivated. It is the lawyer s avenue to the public. However able and faith ful he may be in other respects, people are slow to bring him business if he cannot make a speech. And yet there is not a more fatal error to young lawyers than relying too much on speech-making. If any one, upon his rare powers of speaking, shall claim an exemption from the drudgery of the law, his case is a fail ure in advance. Discourage litigation. Persuade your neigh bors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser in fees, expenses, and waste of time. As a peacemaker the lawyer has a superior op portunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough. Never stir up litigation. A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this. Who can be more nearly a fiend than he who habit ually overhauls the register of deeds in search of defects in titles, whereon to stir up strife, and put money in his pocket? A moral tone ought to be infused into the profession which should drive such men out of it. Notes for a Law Lecture The matter of fees is important, far beyond the mere question of bread and butter involved. Properly attended to, fuller justice is done to both lawyer and client. An exorbitant fee should never be claimed. As a general rule never take your whole fee in advance, nor any more than a small retainer. When fully paid beforehand, you are more than a common mor tal if you can feel the same interest in the case, as if something was still in prospect for you, as well as for your client. And when you lack in terest in the case the job will very likely lack skill and diligence in the performance. Settle the amount of fee and take a note in advance. Then you will feel that you are working for something, and you are sure to do your work faithfully and well. Never sell a fee note at least not before the consideration service is per formed. It leads to negligence and dishonesty negligence by losing -interest in the case, and dishonesty in refusing to refund when you have allowed the consideration to fail. There is a vague popular belief that lawyers are necessarily dishonest. I say vague, because when we consider to what extent confidence and honors are reposed in and conferred upon lawyers by the people, it appears improbable that their impression of dishonesty is very dis tinct and vivid. Yet the impression is common, almost universal. Let no young man choosing the law for a calling for a moment yield to the popular belief resolve to be honest at all 9 Abraham Lincoln events ; and if in your own judgment you can not be an honest lawyer, resolve to be honest without being a lawyer. Choose some other occupation, rather than one in the choosing of which you do, in advance, consent to he a knave. iO Fragment on Slavery July i, 1854 [From early manhood Lincoln s sympathies had been strongly enlisted on behalf of the slaves. The contrast between slave labor and free labor has never been stated more tersely and vividly than here. The sentence, Twenty- five years ago I was a hired laborer," should be noted.] EQUALITY in society alike beats inequality, whether the latter be of the British aristocratic sort or of the domestic slavery sort. We know Southern men declare that their slaves are bet ter off than hired laborers amongst us. How little they know whereof they speak ! There is no permanent class of hired laborers amongst us. Twenty-five years ago I was a hired la borer. The hired laborer of yesterday labors on his own account to-day, and will hire others to labor for him to-morrow. Advancement improvement in condition is the order of things in a society of equals. As labor is the common burden of our race, so the effort of some to shift their share of the burden onto the shoulders of others is the great durable curse of the race. ii Abraham Lincoln Originally a curse for transgression upon the whole race, when, as by slavery, it is concen trated on a part only, it becomes the double- refined curse of God upon his creatures. Free labor has the inspiration of hope ; pure slavery has no hope. The power of hope upon human exertion and happiness is wonderful. The slave-master himself has a conception of it, and hence the system of tasks among slaves. The slave whom you cannot drive with the lash to break seventy-five pounds of hemp in a day, if you will task him to break a hundred, and promise him pay for all he does over, he will break you a hundred and fifty. You have sub stituted hope for the rod. And yet perhaps it does not occur to you that to the extent of your gain in the case, you have given up the slave system and adopted the free system of labor. 12 The Dred Scott Decision and the Dec laration of Independence June 26, 1857 [This is an extract from a speech delivered in Springfield, 111. It was intended as a reply to a speech of Stephen A. Douglas two weeks earlier upon the subject of slavery in the Terri tories. Douglas was the author of the Kansas- Nebraska bill, passed in 1854, which gave the- Territories the right to decide whether they would have slavery. The Dred Scott decision was published by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1857, and was > the effect that a slave or the descendant of -<. slave could not be a citizen of the United States or have any standing in the Federal courts. Lincoln con trasts the spirit of this decision with that of the Declaration of Independence, with a skill and force that will be apparent to every reader. He repeated the substance of the argument over and over again in his joint debates with Douglas in the following year.] I HAVE said, in substance, that the Dred Scott decision was in part based on assumed histori cal 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 in stance or two, which I think fully sustain me. Chief Justice Taney, in delivering the opinion 13 Abraham Lincoln 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 Declara tion of Independence, or the Constitution of the United States. On the contrary, Judge Curtis, in his dissent ing opinion, shows that in five of the then thir teen States to wit, New Hampshire, Massa chusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina free negroes were voters, and in pro portion 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 conlusion on that point, holds the following language : " The Constitution was ordained and estab lished by the people of the United States, through the action, in each State, of those per sons who were qualified by its laws to act there on 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 quali fied by law to act on the subject. These col ored 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 en- Dred Scott Decision lightened 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 Declara tion, 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 favor able now than it was in the days of the Revo lution. 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 a 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 pro- 15 Abraham Lincoln hibition. 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 Su preme 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 and sneered at and construed, and 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 hun dred keys, which can never be unlocked with out 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 in vention, in all the dominions of mind and mat- 16 Dred Scott Decision ter, 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 favor able now than it was at the origin of the gov ernment. 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 na tional faith ; and he has seen that successful rival constitutionally elected, not by the strength of friends, but by the division of adversaries, being in a popular minority of nearly four hun dred thousand votes. He has seen his chief aids in his own State, Shields and Richardson, politically speaking, successively tried, con victed, and executed for an offense 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 at the idea of an indis criminate 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 17 Abraham Lincoln 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, and eat, and sleep, and marry with negroes ! He will have it that they cannot be consistent else. Now I protest against the counterfeit logic which con cludes 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 argu ment comes to just nothing at all, by the other 18 Dred Scott Decision fact that they did not at once, or ever after ward, 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 Decla ration. 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 denned with tolerable distinctness in what respects they did consider all men created equal equal with " certain in alienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This they said, and this they 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 enforcement of it might fol low as fast as circumstances should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all ; constantly looked to, con stantly labored for, and even though never per fectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence and augmenting the happiness and 19 Abraham Lincoln value of life to all people of all colors every where. The assertion that " all men are cre ated equal" was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain ; and it was placed in the Declaration not for that, but for future use. Its authors meant it to be as, thank God, it is now proving itself a stum bling-block to all those who in after-times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should reappear in this fair land and commence their vocation, they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack. I have now briefly expressed my view of the meaning and object of that part of the Declara tion of Independence which declares that " all men are created equal." Now let us hear Judge Douglas s view of the same subject, as I find it in the printed report of his late speech. Here it is : " No man can vindicate the character, mo tives, and conduct of the signers of the Declara tion of Independence, except upon the hypoth esis that they referred to the white race alone, and not to the African, when they declared all men to have been created equal ; that they were speaking of British subjects on this conti nent being equal to British subjects born and residing in Great Britain ; that they were en titled to the same inalienable rights, and among them were enumerated life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colo- Dred Scott Decision nists in the eyes of the civilized world in with drawing their allegiance from the British crown, and dissolving their connection with the mother country." My good friends, read that carefully over some leisure hour, and ponder well upon it ; see what a mere wreck mangled ruin it makes of our once glorious Declaration. " They were speaking of British subjects on this continent being equal to British subjects born and residing in Great Britain !" Why, according to this, not only negroes but white people outside of Great Britain and America were not spoken of in that instrument. The English, Irish, and Scotch, along with white Americans, were included, to be sure, but the French, Germans, and other white people of the world are all gone to pot along with the judge s inferior races ! I had thought the Declaration promised some thing better than the condition of British sub jects ; but no, it only meant that we should be equal to them in their own oppressed and un equal condition. According to that, it gave no promise that, having kicked off the king and lords of Great Britain, we should not at once be saddled with a king and lords of our own. I had thought the Declaration contemplated the progressive improvement in the condition of all men everywhere ; but no, it merely " was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colo nists in the eyes of the civilized world in with- 21 Abraham Lincoln drawing their allegiance from the British crown, and dissolving their connection with the mother country. Why, that object having been effect ed some eighty years ago, the Declaration is of no practical use now mere rubbish old wad ding left to rot on the battle-field after the vic tory is won. I understand you are preparing to celebrate the "Fourth," to-morrow week. What for? The doings of that day had no reference to the present ; and quite half of you are not even de scendants of those who were referred to at that day. But I suppose you will celebrate, and will even go so far as to read the Declaration. Suppose, after you read it once in the old-fash ioned way, you read it once more with Judge Douglas s version. It will then run thus : " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all British subjects who were on this continent eighty-one years ago, were created equal to all British subjects born and then residing in Great Britain." And now I appeal to all to Democrats as well as others are you really willing that the Declaration shall thus be frittered away ? thus left no more, at most, than an interesting me morial of the dead past? thus shorn of its vitality and practical value, and left without the germ or even the suggestion of the individ ual rights of man in it ? 22 Springfield Speech June 16, 1858 Speech delivered at Springfield, Illinois, at the close of the Republican State Convention by which Mr. Lincoln had been named as their candidate for United States Senator. [The opening paragraph of this speech was prepared with the most extreme care, and prob ably did more to influence Lincoln s political future than anything he ever wrote. His best friends thought it impolitic to utter the senti ment that the government cannot endure per manently half slave and half free." For the immediate purpose of that campaign they were right, for this paragraph, in the opin ion of many good judges, was the cause of Lin coln s defeat by Douglas. But the constant discussion of those sentences in the great series of joint debates with Douglas during the sum mer and autumn brought Lincoln s views be fore the whole country, and was an important element in his selection as the Republican can didate for the Presidency in 1860. The entire speech, read in the light of subsequent history, affords remarkable evidence not only of Lin coln s shrewdness as a party leader, but of his political wisdom in the highest sense.] Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Con vention : If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better 23 Abraham Lincoln judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agita tion has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, 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 cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved I do not expect the house to fall but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the oppo nents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ulti mate extinction ; or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South. Have we no tendency to the latter condition ? Let any one who doubts carefully contem plate that now almost complete legal combina tion piece of machinery, so to speak com pounded of the Nebraska doctrine and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted ; but also let him study the his tory of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of 24 Springfield Speech design and concert of action among its chief architects, from the beginning. The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the States by State consti tutions, and from most of the national territory by congressional prohibition. Four days later commenced the struggle which ended in repeal ing that congressional prohibition. This opened all the national territory to slavery, and was the first point gained. But, so far, Congress only had acted ; and an indorsement by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable to save the point already gained and give chance for more. This necessity had not been overlooked, but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of " squatter sover eignty," otherwise called " sacred right of self- government," which latter phrase, though ex pressive of the only rightful basis of any gov ernment, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this : That if any one man choose to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object. That argument was incorporated into the Nebraska bill itself, in the language which follows : " It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legis late slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom ; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." 25 Abraham Lincoln Then opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of "squatter sovereignty" and "sacred right of self-government." " But," said oppo sition members, " let us amend the bill so as to expressly declare that the people of the Terri tory may exclude slavery." " Not we," said the friends of the measure ; and down they voted the amendment. While the Nebraska bill was passing through Congress, a law case involving the question of a negro s freedom, by reason of his owner hav ing voluntarily taken him first into a free State and then into a Territory covered by the con gressional prohibition, and held him as a slave for a long time in each, was passing through the United States Circuit Court for the District of Missouri ; and both Nebraska bill and law suit were brought to a decision in the same month of May, 1854. The negro s name was Dred Scott, which name now designates the de cision finally made in the case. Before the then next presidential election, the law case came to and was argued in the Supreme Court of the United States ; but the decision of it was deferred until after the election. Still, be fore the election, Senator Trumbull, on the floor of the Senate, requested the leading ad vocate of the Nebraska bill to state his opinion whether the people of a Territory can constitu tionally exclude slavery from their limits ; and the latter answered : That is a question for the Supreme Court." 26 Springfield Speech The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elect ed, and the indorsement, such as it was, se cured. That was the second point gained. The indorsement, however, fell short of a clear popular majority by nearly four hundred thou sand votes, and so, perhaps, was not over whelmingly reliable and satisfactory. The out going President, in his last annual message, as impressively as possible echoed back upon the people the weight and authority of the indorse ment. The Supreme Court met again ; did not announce their decision, but ordered a reargu- ment. The presidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the court ; but the in coming President in his inaugural address fer vently exhorted the people to abide by the forth coming decision, whatever it might be. Then, in a few days, came the decision. The reputed author of the Nebraska bill finds an early occasion to make a speech at this cap ital indorsing the Dred Scott decision; and vehemently denouncing all opposition to it. The new President, too, seizes the early occa sion of the Silliman letter to indorse and strongly construe that decision, and to express his aston ishment that any different view had ever been entertained ! At length a squabble springs up between the President and the author of the Nebraska bill, on the mere question of fact, whether the Lecompton constitution was or was not, in any just sense, made by the people of Kansas ; and 2 7 Abraham Lincoln in that quarrel the latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up. I do not understand his declaration that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up to be intended by him other than as an apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the public mind the principle for which he declares he has suffered so much, and is ready to suffer to the end. And well may he cling to that principle. If he has any parental feeling, well may he cling to it. That principle is the only shred left of his original Nebraska doctrine. Under the Dred Scott de cision "squatter sovereignty" squatted out of existence, tumbled down like temporary scaf folding, like the mold at the foundry, served through one blast and fell back into loose sand, helped to carry an election, and then was kicked to the winds. His late joint struggle with the Republicans against the Lecompton constitution involves nothing of the original Nebraska doctrine. That struggle was made on a point the right of a people to make their own constitution upon which he and the Re publicans have never differed. The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection with Senator Douglas s "care not" policy, constitute the piece of machinery in its present state of advancement. This was the third point gained. The working points of that machinery are : 28 Springfield Speech (1) That no negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and no descendant of such slave, can ever be a citizen of any State, in the sense of that term as used in the Constitution of the United States. This point is made in order to deprive the negro in every possible event of the benefit of that provision of the United States Constitution which declares that " the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the priv ileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." (2) That, " subject to the Constitution of the United States," neither Congress nor a terri torial legislature can exclude slavery from any United States Territory. This point is made in order that individual men may fill up the Territories with slaves, without danger of los ing them as property, and thus enhance the chances of permanency to the institution through all the future. (3) That whether the holding a negro in ac tual slavery in a free State makes him free as against the holder, the United States courts will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave State the negro may be forced into by the master. This point is made not to be pressed immediately, but, if acquiesced in for a while and apparently indorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logi cal conclusion that what Dred Scott s master might lawfully do with Dred Scott in the free State of Illinois, every other master may law- 29 Abraham Lincoln fully do with any other one or one thousand slaves in Illinois or in any other free State. Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mold public opin ion, at least Northern public opinion, not to care whether slavery is voted down or voted up. This shows exactly where we now are, and partially, also, whither we are tending. It will throw additional light on the latter, to go back and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. The people were to be left " perfectly free," " sub ject only to the Constitution." What the Con stitution had to do with it outsiders could not then see. Plainly enough now, it was an ex actly fitted niche for the Dred Scott decision to afterward come in, and declare the perfect free dom of the people to be just no freedom at all. Why was the amendment expressly declaring the right of the people voted down ? Plainly enough now, the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision. Why was the court decision held up ? Why even a senator s individual opinion withheld till after the presidential election ? Plainly enough now, the speaking out then would have damaged the "perfectly free" argument upon which the election was to be carried. Why the outgoing President s felicitation on the indorse- 30 Springfield Speech ment ? Why the delay of a reargument ? Why the incoming President s advance exhor tation in favor of the decision ? These things look like the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. And why the hasty after-indorsement of the decision by the President and others ? We cannot absolutely know that all these ex act adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, differ ent portions of which we know have been got ten out at different times and places and by different workmen, Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance, and we see these tim bers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortises exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, not omitting even scaffolding or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in in such a case we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck. It should not be overlooked that, by the Ne braska bill, the people of a State as well as Ter ritory were to be left "perfectly free," " sub- Abraham Lincoln ject only to the Constitution. Why mention a State ? They were legislating for Territories, and not for or about States. Certainly the peo ple of a State are and ought to be subject to the Constitution of the United States ; but why is mention of this lugged into this merely terri torial law ? Why are the people of a Territory and the people of a State therein lumped to gether, and their relation to the Constitution therein treated as being precisely the same ? While the opinion of the court, by Chief Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott case, and the separate opinions of all the concurring judges, expressly declare that the Constitution of the United States neither permits Congress nor a terri torial legislature to exclude slavery from any United States Territory, they all omit to de clare whether or not the same Constitution per mits a State, or the people of a State, to exclude it. Possibly, this is a mere omission ; but who can be quite sure, if McLean or Curtis had sought to get into the opinion a declaration of unlimited power in the people of a State to ex clude slavery from their limits, just as Chase and Mace sought to get such declaration, in behalf of the people of a Territory, into the Nebraska bill I ask, who can be quite sure that it would not have been voted down in the one case as it had been in the other? The nearest approach to the point of declaring the power of a State over slavery is made by Judge Nelson. He approaches it more than once, 32 Springfield Speech using the precise idea, and almost the language too, of the Nebraska act. On one occasion his exact language is : " Except in cases where the power is restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the law of the State is su preme over the subject of slavery within its jurisdiction." In what cases the power of the States is so restrained by the United States Constitution is left an open question, precisely as the same question as to the restraint on the power of the Territories was left open in the Nebraska act. Put this and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a State to exclude slavery from its limits. And this may especially be expected if the doctrine of " care not whether slavery be voted down or voted up" shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can be maintained when made. Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the States. Wel come, or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and overthrown. We shall lie down pleas antly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State. 33 Abraham Lincoln To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation. That is what we have to do. How can we best do it ? There are those who denounce us openly to their own friends, and yet whisper us softly that Senator Douglas is the aptest instrument there is with which to effect that object. They wish us to infer all from the fact that he now has a little quarrel with the present head of the dynasty ; and that he has regularly voted with us on a single point upon which he and we have never differed. They remind us that he is a great man, and that the largest of us are very small ones. Let this be granted. But " a liv ing dog is better than a dead lion." Judge Douglas, if not a dead lion for this work, is at least a caged and toothless one. How can he oppose the advances of slavery ? He don t care anything about it. His avowed mission is im pressing the "public heart" to care nothing about it. A leading Douglas Democratic news paper thinks Douglas s superior talent will be needed to resist the revival of the African slave-trade. Does Douglas believe an effort to revive that trade is approaching ? He has not said so. Does he really think so ? But if it is, how can he resist it ? For years he has labored to prove it a sacred right of white men to take negro slaves into the new Territories. Can he possibly show that it is less a sacred right to buy them where they can be bought cheapest ? 34 Springfield Speech And unquestionably they can be bought cheaper in Africa than in Virginia. He has done all in his power to reduce the whole question of slavery to one of a mere right of property ; and as such, how can he oppose the foreign slave- trade ? How can he refuse that trade in that "property" shall be "perfectly free," unless he does it as a protection to the home produc tion ? And as the home producers will probably not ask the protection, he will be wholly with out a ground of opposition. Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man may rightfully be wiser to-day than he was yes terdaythat he may rightfully change when he finds himself wrong. But can we, for that rea son, run ahead, and infer that he will make any particular change of which he, himself, has- given no intimation ? Can we safely base our action upon any such vague inference ? Now, as ever, I wish not to misrepresent Judge Douglas s position, question his motives, or do aught that can be personally offensive to him. Whenever, if ever, he and we can come to gether on principle so that our great cause may have assistance from his great ability, I hope to have interposed no adventitious obstacle. But clearly, he is not now with us he does not pre tend to be he does not promise ever to be. Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by, its own undoubted friends those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work, who do care for the result. Two years 35 Abraham Lincoln ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external cir cumstance against us. Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the bat tle through, under the constant hot fire of a dis ciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. Did we brave all then to falter now ? now, when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent ? The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail if we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may accelerate or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later, the victory is sure to come. Address at Cooper Institute February 27, 1860 [This was Lincoln s first appearance before an Eastern audience. The speech cost him a great deal of labor, and was most heartily re ceived. See Morse s " Abraham Lincoln," I., 153-156.] 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 autumn at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in the New York Times, Senator Douglas said : - " Our fathers, when they framed the govern ment 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 fur nishes a precise and an agreed starting-point for a discussion between Republicans and that wing of the Democracy headed by Senator 37 Abraham Lincoln Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry : What was the understanding those fathers had of the question mentioned ? What is the frame of government under which we live ? The answer must be, The Constitu tion 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 subsequently framed amendments, the first ten of which were framed in 1789. Who were our fathers that framed the Con stitution ? I suppose the "thirty-nine" who signed the original instrument may be fairly called our fathers who framed that part of the present government. It is almost exactly 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. I Their names, being familiar to nearly all, aria accessible to quite all, need not now be re peated. I take these "thirty-nine," for the present, as being " our fathers who framed the govern ment under which we live." What is the ques tion 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 of local from Federal authority, or anything in the Con stitution, forbid our Federal Government to control as to slavery in our Federal Territories ? 33 Address at Cooper Institute Upon this, Senator Douglas holds the affirma tive, and Republicans the negative. This affirmation and denial form an issue ; and this issue this question is precisely what the text declares our fathers understood better than we." Let us now inquire whether the " thirty- nine," or any of them, ever acted upon this question ; and if they did, how they acted upon it how they expressed that better understand ing. In 1784, three years before the Constitu tion, the United States then owning the North western Territory, and no other, the Congress of the Confederation had before them the ques tion of prohibiting slavery in that Territory ; and four of the " thirty-nine" who afterward framed the Constitution were in that Congress, and voted on that question. Of these, Roger Sherman, Thomas Mifflin, and Hugh William son voted for the prohibition, thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from Federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the Federal Government 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 39 Abraham Lincoln the Confederation ; and two more of the " thirty-nine" who afterward signed the Con stitution were in that Congress, and voted on the question. They were William Blount and Wil liam Few ; and they both voted for the pro hibitionthus showing that in their under standing no line dividing local from Federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the Federal Government to control 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 orig inal Constitution ; and hence it is not recorded 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 ordinance of 87, including the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. The bill for this act was reported by one of the " thirty-nine" Thomas Fitzsimmons, then a member of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania. It went through all its stages without a word of opposition, and finally passed both branches without ayes and nays, which is equivalent to a unanimous passage. In this Congress there were sixteen of the thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution. 40 Address at Cooper Institute They were John Langdon, Nicholas Oilman, Wm. S. Johnson, Roger Sherman, Robert Mor ris, Trios. Fitzsimmons, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, William Paterson, George Clymer, Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll, and James Madison. This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from Federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, properly forbade Congress to prohibit slavery in the Federal ter ritory ; else both their fidelity to correct princi ple, and their oath to support the Constitution, would have constrained them to oppose the prohibition. Again, 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 validity as a law, and thus showing 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 territory. No great while after the adoption of the orig inal Constitution, North Carolina ceded to the Federal Government the country now consti tuting 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 condition by the ceding States that the Federal Govern ment should not prohibit slavery in the ceded Abraham Lincoln country. Besides this, slavery was then ac tually in the ceded country. Under these cir cumstances, Congress, on taking charge of these countries, did not absolutely prohibit slavery within them. ^But they did interfere with it take control of it even there, to a cer tain extent.__7ln 1798 Congress organized the Territory of Mississippi. In the act of organi zation 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" who framed the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, George Read, and Abraham Baldwin. They all probably 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 authority, or anything in the Constitution, prop erly forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in Federal territory. In 1803 the Federal Government purchased the Louisiana country. Our former territorial acquisitions came from certain of our own States ; but this Louisiana country was ac quired from a foreign nation. In 1804 Con gress gave a territorial organization to that part of it which now constitutes the State of Louisi ana. New Orleans, lying within that part, was an old and comparatively large city. 42 Address at Cooper Institute There were other considerable towns and settle ments, and slavery was extensively and thor oughly intermingled with the people. ^Congress did not, in the Territorial Act, prohibit slavery ; but they did interfere with it take control of it in a more marked and extensive way than they did in the case of Mississippi/^ The sub stance of the provision therein made in relation to slaves was : ist. That no slave should be imported into the Territory from foreign parts. 2d. That no slave should be carried into it who had been imported into the United States since the first day of May, 1798. 3d. That no slave should be carried into it, except by the owner, and for his own use as a settler ; the penalty in all the cases being a fine upon the violator of the law, and freedom to the slave. This act also was passed without ayes or nays. In the Congress which passed it there were two of the "thirty-nine." They were Abraham Baldwin and Jonathan Dayton. As stated in the case of Mississippi, it is probable they both voted for it. They would not have allowed it to pass without recording their op position to it if, in their understanding, it vio lated either the line properly dividing local from Federal authority, or any provision of the Con stitution. In 1819-20 came and passed the Missouri question. Many votes were taken, by yeas and 43 Abraham Lincoln nays, in both branches of Congress, 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 prohibition 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, was violated by Congress prohibiting slavery in Federal terri tory ; while Mr. Pinckney, by his votes, showed that, in his understanding, there was some sufficient reason for opposing such prohibition in that case. 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, two in 1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 1798, two in 1804, and two in 1819-20, there would be thirty of them. But this would be counting John Langdon, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus King, and George Read each twice, and Abraham Bald win three times. The true number of those of the " thirty-nine" whom I have shown to have acted upon the question which, by the text, they understood better than we, is twenty-three, leaving sixteen not shown to have acted upon it in any way. 44 Address at Cooper Institute Here, then, we have twenty- three out of our thirty-nine fathers " who framed the govern ment 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 4 thirty-nine" so acting upon it as to make them guilty of gross political impropriety and wilful perjury if, in their understanding, any proper division between local and Federal au thority, 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 the twenty-three voted against con gressional 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 division 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 against the prohibition on what ap peared to the.m to be sufficient grounds of ex pediency. / Jo one who has sworn to support the Constitution can conscientiously vote for 45 Abraham Lincoln what he understands to be an unconstitutional measure, however expedient he may think it ; but one may and ought to vote against a meas ure which he deems constitutional if, at the same time, he deems it inexpedient!! It, there fore, 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 anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government 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 control of slavery in the Federal Territories. But there is much reason to be lieve that their understanding upon that ques tion would not have appeared different from that of their twenty-three compeers, had it been manifested at all. For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I have purposely omijtted whatever under standing may have been manifested by any person, however distinguished, 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 "thirty-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 46 Address at Cooper Institute foreign slave-trade, and the morality and policy of slavery generally, it would appear to us that on the direct question of Federal control 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 six teen were several of the most noted anti-slavery, men of those times as Dr. Franklin, Alexan der Hamilton, and Gouverneur Morris while there was not one now known to have been otherwise, unless it may be John Rutledge, cf South Carolina. The sum of the whole is that of our thirty- nine fathers who framed the original Constitu tion, twenty-one a clear majority of the whole ^certainly understood that no proper division of local from Federal authority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Govern- mentjx) control slavery in the Federal Terri tories/ while all the rest had probably the same understanding. Such, unquestionably, was the understanding of our fathers who framed the original Constitution ; and the text affirms that they understood the question " better than we." But, so far, I have been considering the un derstanding of the question manifested by the framers of the original Constitution. In and by the original instrument, a mode was pro vided for amending it ; and, as I have already stated, the present frame of " the government under which we live" consists of that original, and twelve amendatory articles framed and 47 Abraham Lincoln adopted since. Those who now insist that Fed eral control of slavery in Federal Territories violates the Constitution, point us to the pro visions which they suppose it thus violates ; and, as I understand, they all fix upon pro visions in these amendatory articles, and not in the original instrument. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, plant themselves upon the fifth amendment, which provides that no person shall be deprived of " life, liberty, or property without due process of law ;" while Senator Douglas and his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the tenth amendment, providing that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Now it so happens that these amendments were framed by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution the identical Congress which passed the act, already mentioned, en forcing the prohibition of slavery in the North western Territory. Not only was it the same Congress, but they were the identical, same in dividual men who, at the same session, and at the same time within the session, had under consideration, and in progress toward matu rity, these constitutional amendments, and this act prohibiting slavery in all the territory the nation then owned. The constitutional amend ments were introduced before, and passed after, the act enforcing the ordinance of 87 ; so that, 48 Address at Cooper Institute during the whole pendency of the act to enforce the ordinance, the constitutional amendments were also pending. The seventy-six members of that Congress, including sixteen of the framers of the original Constitution, as before stated, were pre-emi nently our fathers who framed that part of " the government under which we live" which is now claimed as forbidding the Federal Gov ernment to control slavery in the Federal Ter ritories. Is it not a little presumptuous in any one at this day to affirm that the two things which that Congress deliberately framed, and carried to maturity at the same time, are absolutely in consistent with each other ? And does not such affirmation become impudently absurd when coupled with the other affirmation, from the same mouth, that those who did the two things alleged to be inconsistent, understood whether they really were inconsistent better than we better than he who affirms that they are incon sistent ? It is surely safe to assume that the thirty-nine framers of the original Constitution, and the seventy-six members of the Congress which framed the amendments thereto, taken to gether, do certainly include those who may be fairly called our fathers who framed the gov ernment under which we live. And so assum ing, I defy any man to show that any one of them ever, in his whole life, declared that, in 49 Abraham Lincoln his understanding, any proper division of local from Federal authority, or any part of the Con stitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories. I go a step further. 1 defy any one to show that any living man in the whole world ever did, prior to the beginning of the present cen tury (and I might almost say prior to the be ginning of the last half of the present century), declare that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from Federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Fed eral Territories. To those who now so declare I give not only our fathers who framed the government under which we live," but with them all other living men within 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 with 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 experience to reject all progress, all improvement. What I do say is that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we should do so upon evidence 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 50 Address at Cooper Institute declare they understood the question better than we. If any man at this day sincerely believes that a proper division of local from Federal author ity, or any part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories, he is right to say so, and to enforce his position by all truthful evi dence and fair argument which he can. But he has no right to mislead others, who have less access to history, and less leisure to study it, into the false belief that " our fathers who framed the government under which we live" were of the same opinion thus substituting falsehood and deception for truthful evidence and fair argument. If any man at this day sin cerely believes " our 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 Constitution, forbids the Fed eral 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 un derstands their principles better than they did themselves ; and especially should he not shirk that responsibility by asserting that they " un derstood the question just as well, and even better, than we do now." But enough ! Let all who believe that " our 51 Abraham Lincoln 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 Republicans desire in relation 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 pro tected 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 grudgingly, but fully and fairly, maintained. For this Repub licans contend, and with this, so far as I know or believe, they will be content. And now, if they would listen as I suppose they will not I would address a few words to the Southern people. I would say to them : You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just people ; and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and jus tice you are not inferior to any other people. Still, when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us as reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You 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 Re publicanism" as the first thing to be attended to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite license, so to 52 Address at Cooper Institute speak among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all. Now can you or not be pre vailed 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 upon 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 sectional. You cannot escape this conclusion ; and yet, are you willing to abide by it ? If you are, you will probably soon find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall get votes in your section this very year. You will then be gin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof does not touch the issue. The fact that 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 any wrong principle or prac tice, the fault is ours ; but this brings you to where you ought to have started to a discus sion of the right or wrong of our principle. If 53 Abraham Lincoln our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for any other object, then our principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are justly opposed and denounced as such. Meet us, then, on the question of whether our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section ; and so meet us as if it were possible that something may be said on our side. Do you accept the challenge ? No ! Then you really believe that the principle which "our fathers who framed the government un der 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 with out a moment s consideration. Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning 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, expressing in the same connection his hope that we should at some time have a confederacy of free States. Bearing this in mind, and seeing that section- 54 Address at Cooper Institute alism has since arisen upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, or in our hands against you ? Could Wash ington himself speak, would he cast the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon you, who repudiate it ? We re spect .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 conservative while we are revolutionary, de structive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism ? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and 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 un der 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 are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for re viving the foreign slave-trade ; some for a con gressional slave code for the Territories ; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to pro hibit slavery within their limits ; some for main taining slavery in the Territories through the judiciary ; some for the " gur-reatpur-rinciple" that " if one man would enslave another, no 55 Abraham Lincoln third man should object," fantastically called "popular sovereignty;" but never a man among you is in favor of Federal prohibition of slavery in Federal Territories, according to the practice of our fathers who framed the gov ernment under which we live." Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our gov ernment originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge of destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable founda tions. . Again, you say we have made the slavery question more prominent than it formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more promi nent, but we deny that we made it so. It 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 prominence of the question. Would you have that question reduced to its former proportions ? Go back to that old policy. What has been will be again, under the same conditions. If you would have the peace of the old times, re- adopt the precepts and policy of the old times. You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it ; and what is your proof ? 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 56 Address at Cooper Institute our party is guilty in that matter, you know it, or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are inexcusable for not designating the man and proving the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable for asserting it, and espe cially for persisting 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 de signedly aided or encouraged the Harper s Ferry affair, but still insist that our doctrines and declarations necessarily lead to such re sults. We do not believe it. We know we hold no doctrine, and make no declaration, 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 with the belief that, by charging the blame upon us, you could get an advantage of us in those elec tions. The elections came, and your expecta tions were not quite fulfilled. Every Republi can 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. Republican doctrines and declarations are ac companied with a continual protest against any interference whatever with your slaves, or with 57 Abraham Lincoln you about your slaves. Surely, this does not encourage them to revolt. True, we do, in common with " our fathers who framed the government under which we live," declare our belief that slavery is wrong ; but the slaves do not hear us declare even this. 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 Republicanism ; and then, to give point to the charge, defines Black Republican ism to simply be insurrection, blood, and thun der among the slaves. Slave insurrections are no more common now than they were before the Republican party was organized. What induced the Southamp ton insurrection, twenty-eight years ago, in which at least three times as many lives were lost as at Harper s Ferry ? You can scarcely stretch your very elastic fancy to the conclusion that Southampton was " got up by Black Re publicanism." 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 freemen, black or white, supply it. The explo sive materials are everywhere in parcels ; but 53 Address at Cooper Institute there neither are, nor can be supplied, the in dispensable connecting trains. Much is said by Southern people about the affection of slaves for their masters and mis tresses ; and a part of it, at least, is true. A plot for an uprising could scarcely be devised and communicated to twenty individuals before some one of them, to save the life of a favorite master or mistress, would divulge it. This is the rule ; and the slave revolution in Hayti was not an exception to it, but a case occurring un der peculiar circumstances. The gunpowder plot of British history, though not connected with slaves, was more in point. In that case, only about twenty were admitted to the secret ; and yet one of them, in his anxiety to save a friend, betrayed the plot to that friend, and, by consequence, averted the calamity. Occasional poisonings from the kitchen, and open or stealthy assassinations in the field, and local re volts 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 deporta-^ c ^ tion peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly ; and their L* places be, part passu, filled up by free white Abraham Lincoln 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 Fed eral Government. He spoke of Virginia ; and, as to the power of emancipation, I speak of the slaveholding States only. The Federal Govern ment, however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the extension of the institution 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 get 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 it could not succeed. That affair, in its philosophy, cor responds with the many attempts, related in history, at the assassination of kings and em perors. An enthusiast broods over the oppres sion of a people till he fancies himself com missioned by Heaven to liberate them. He ventures the attempt, which ends in little else than his own execution. Orsini s attempt on Louis Napoleon, and John Brown s attempt at Harper s Ferry, were, in their philosophy, pre cisely the same. The eagerness to cast blame on old England in the one case, and on New 60 Address at Cooper Institute England in the other, does not disprove the sameness of the two things. And how much would it avail you, if you could, by the use of John Brown, Helper s Book, and the like, break up the Republican organization ? Human action can be modified to some extent, but human nature cannot 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 judgment and feeling that senti mentby breaking up the political organization which rallies around it. You can scarcely scat ter 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 peaceful channel of the ballot-box into some other channel ? What would that other chan nel probably be ? Would the number of John Browns be lessened or enlarged by the opera tion ? p * [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 you make these declarations you have 61 Abraham Lincoln a specific and well-understood allusion to an assumed constitutional right of yours to take slaves into the Federal Territories, and to hold them there as property. But no such right is specially written in the Constitution. That in strument is literally silent about any such right. We, on the contrary, deny that such a 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 construe and force the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events. This, plainly stated, is your language. Per haps you will say the Supreme Court has de cided the disputed constitutional question in your favor. Not quite so. But waiving the lawyer s distinction between dictum and de cision, the court has decided the question for you in a sort of way. The court has 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 de cision was made in a sort of way, I mean it was made in a divided court, by a bare majority 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 dis agree with one another about its meaning, and that it was mainly based upon a mistaken state ment of fact the statement in the opinion that 62 Address at Cooper Institute " the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution." An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of property in a slave is not " dis tinctly 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 verac ity 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 infer ence, and susceptible of no other meaning. If they had only pledged their judicial opin ion that such 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 connec tion with language alluding to the thing slave, or slavery ; and that wherever in that instru ment the slave is alluded to, he is called a "person;" and wherever his master s legal right in relation to him is alluded to, it is spoken of as " service or labor which may be 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 em ployed on purpose to exclude from the Consti tution the idea that there could be property in man. 63 Abraham Lincoln 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 Con stitution decided this same constitutional ques tion in our favor long ago : decided it without division among themselves when making the decision ; without 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 gov ernment 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 presi dent ! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union ; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon 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 rigLt to keep it ; but it was no more my 64 Address at Cooper Institute 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 principle. A few words now to Republicans. It is ex ceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony one with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Qven though much pro voked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temperTJ ^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 controversy with us, let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy them. Will they be satisfied if the Territories be un conditionally surrendered to them ? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against us, the Territories are scarcely men tioned. Invasions and insurrections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and in surrections ? 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 ? Simply this : we must not only let them alone, 65 Abraham Lincoln but we must somehow convince them that \ve do let them alone. This, we know by experi ence, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly 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. These 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 with them. Senator Douglas 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 ar rest 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 sla very, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us. I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely 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." 66 Address at Cooper Institute But we do let them alone have never disturbed them so that, after all, it is what we say which dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease saying. I am also aware they have not as yet in terms demanded the overthrow of our free-State con stitutions. 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 shall have been silenced, the overthrow of these constitutions will be de manded, and nothing be left to resist the de mand. It is nothing to the contrary that they do not demand the whole of this just now. De manding what they do, and for the reason they do, they can voluntarily stop nowhere short of this consummation. 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 them selves 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 enlargement. All they ask we could readily grant, if we thought slavery right ; all we ask they could as readily grant, if they thought it 67 Abraham Lincoln wrong. Their thinking it right and our think ing it wrong is the precise fact upon which de pends the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do, they are not to blame for de siring its full recognition as being right ; but thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them ? Can we cast our votes with their view, and against our own ? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we do this? Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation j 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 contri vances wherewith 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 invoca tions to Washington, imploring men to unsay 68 Address at Cooper Institute what Washington said and undo what Wash ington did. Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the gov ernment, 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. Farewell at Springfield February n, 1861 [These words, to which subsequent events have given an added note of solemnity, were spoken to a vast audience of Lincoln s fellow- citizens upon the rainy February day when he left Springfield for Washington to assume the duties of the Presidency.] My Friends: No one, not in my situation, can appreciate my feeling of sadness at this parting. To this place, and the kindness of these people, I owe everything. Here I have lived a quarter of a century, and have passed from a young to an old man. Here my chil dren have been born, and one is buried. I now leave, not knowing when or whether ever I may return, with a task before me greater than that which rested upon Washington. Without the assistance of that Divine Being who ever attended him, I cannot succeed. With that assistance, I cannot fail. Trusting in Him who can go with me, and remain with you, and be everywhere for good, let us confi dently hope that all will yet be well. To His care commending you, as I hope in your prayers you will commend me, I bid you an affectionate farewell. 70 Speech in Independence Hall, Philadelphia February 22, 1861 [During the journey to Washington Lincoln made many brief addresses. The following, spoken in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, upon Washington s Birthday, is one of the most felicitous, and the time and place of its delivery give it additional interest.] Mr. Cuyler : I am filled with deep emotion at finding myself standing in this place, where were collected together the wisdom, the patri otism, the devotion to principle, from which sprang the institutions under which we live. You have kindly suggested to me that in my hands is the task of restoring peace to our dis tracted country. I can say in return, sir, that all. the political sentiments I entertain have been drawn, so far as I have been able to draw them, from the sentiments which originated in and were given to the world from this hall. I have never had a feeling, politically, that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence. I have often pondered over the dangers which were incurred by the men who assembled here and framed Abraham Lincoln and adopted that Declaration. I have pon dered over the toils that were endured by the officers and soldiers of the army who achieved that independence. I have often inquired of myself what great principle or idea it was that kept this Confederacy so long together. It was not the mere matter of separation of the col onies from the motherland, but that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty not alone to the people of this country, but hope to all the world, for all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due time the weights would be lifted from the shoul ders of all men, and that all should have an equal chance. This is the sentiment embodied in the Declaration of Independence. Now, my friends, can this country be saved on that basis? If it can, I will consider myself one of the happiest men in the world if I can help to save it. If it cannot be saved upon that prin ciple, it will be truly awful. But if this country cannot be saved without giving up that princi ple, I was about to say I would rather be assas sinated on this spot than surrender it. Now, in my view of the present aspect of affairs, there is no need of bloodshed and war. There is no necessity for it. I am not in favor of such a course ; and I may say in advance that there will be no bloodshed unless it is forced upon the government. The government will not use force, unless force is used against it. My friends, this is wholly an unprepared 72 Speech in Independence Hall speech. I did not expect to be called on to say a word when I came here. I supposed I was merely to do something toward raising a flag. I may, therefore, have said something indis creet. [Cries of " No, no."] But I have said nothing but what I am willing to live by, and, if it be the pleasure of Almighty God, to die by. 73 First Inaugural Address. March 4, 1861. [" Mr. Lincoln was simply introduced by Senator Baker, of Oregon, and delivered his inaugural address. His voice had great carry ing capacity, and the vast crowd heard with ease a speech of which every sentence was fraught with an importance and scrutinized with an anxiety far beyond that of any other speech ever delivered in the United States. . . . The inaugural address was simple, earnest, and direct, unincumbered by that rhetorical orna mentation which the American people have al ways admired as the highest form of eloquence. Those Northerners who had expected magnilo quent periods and exaggerated outbursts of patriotism were disappointed, and as they lis tened in vain for the scream of the eagle, many grumbled at the absence of what they conceived to be force. Yet the general feeling was of sat isfaction, which grew as the address was more thoroughly studied." Morse s "Abraham Lincoln." \ Fellow-citizens of the United States : In compliance with a custom as old as the govern ment itself, I appear before you to address you briefly, and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President " before he enters on the execution of his office." 74 First Inaugural Address I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or ex citement. Apprehension seems to exist among the peo ple of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any rea sonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspec tion. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that " I have no purpose, directly or in directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And, more than this, they placed in the platform for my accept ance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read : " Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate ot the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judg ment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance 75 Abraham Lincoln of our political fabric depend, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes." I now reiterate these sentiments ; and, in doing so, I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise en dangered by the now incoming administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consis tently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause as cheerfully to one section as to an other. There is much controversy about the deliver ing up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions : 1 No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into an other, shall in consequence of any law or regu lation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the re claiming of what we call fugitive slaves ; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution to this provision as much 76 First Inaugural Address as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause " shall be delivered up," their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath? There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority ; but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little conse quence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should any one in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept ? Again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civ ilized and humane jurisprudence to be intro duced, so that a free man be not, in any case, surrendered as a slave ? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that " the citizen of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and im munities of citizens in the several States" ? I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations, and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules. And while I do not choose now to specify 77 Abraham Lincoln particular acts of Congress as proper to be en forced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed, than to violate any o them, trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional. It is seventy-two years since the first inaugu ration of a President under our National Con stitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have, in suc cession, administered the executive branch of the government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted. I hold that, in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Con tinue to execute all the express provisions of or National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself. 73 First Inaugural Address Again, if the United States be not a govern ment proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the par ties who made it ? One party to a contract may violate it break it, so to speak ; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it ? Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that, in legal contem plation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further ma tured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confed eration in 1778. And, finally, in 1787 one of the declared objects for ordaining and estab lishing the Constitution was " to form a more perfect Union." But if the destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possi ble, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union ; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void ; and that acts of vio lence, within any State or States, against the 79 Abraham Lincoln authority of the United States, are insurrection ary or revolutionary, according to circum stances. I therefore consider that, in view of the Con stitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken ; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part ; and I shall perform it so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, or in some au thoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself. In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence ; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, oc cupy, and possess the property and places be longing to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts ; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no in vasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States, in any interior locality, shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnox ious strangers among the people for that object, So First Inaugural Address While the strict legal right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritat ing, and so nearly impracticable withal, that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices. The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible, the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised according to circumstances actually existing, and with a view and a hope of a peace ful solution of the national troubles and the res toration of fraternal sympathies and affections. That there are persons in one section or an other who seek to destroy the Union at all events, and are glad of any pretext to do it, I will neither affirm nor deny ; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak ? Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it ? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the Si Abraham Lincoln ills you fly from have no real existence ? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake ? All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in the Constitution, has been denied? I think not. Happily the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Con stitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution certainly would if such a right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guarantees and prohibitions, in the Constitution, that controversies never arise con cerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain, express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority ? The Constitu tion does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Con- 82 First Inaugural Address stitution does not expressly say. Must Con gress protect slavery in the Territories ? The Constitution does not expressly say. From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease. There is no other alternative ; for continuing the govern ment is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them ; for a minor ity of their own will secede from them when ever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any por tion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it ? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this. Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new Union, as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed secession ? Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in re straint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Who- . 83 Abraham Lincoln ever rejects it does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible ; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrange ment, is wholly inadmissible ; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left. I do not forget the position, assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court ; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding, in any case, upon the parties to a suit, as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the pol icy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their govern ment into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which 84 First Inaugural Address they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes. One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution, and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave-trade, are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly sup ports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, cannot be perfectly cured ; and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave- trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived, without restriction, in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other. Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall be tween them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence and be yond the reach of each other ; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, 35 Abraham Lincoln either amicable or hostile, must continue be tween them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satis factory after separation than before ? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends ? Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always ; and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions as to terms of intercourse are again upon you. This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary o the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dis member or overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citi zens are desirous of having the National Con stitution amended. While I make no recom mendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of -the modes prescribed in the instrument itself ; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will ven ture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propo- 86 First Inaugural Address sitions originated by others not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution which amend ment, however, I have not seen has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Govern ment shall never interfere with the domestic in stitutions of the States, including that of per sons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable. The chief magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have conferred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States The people themselves can do this also if they choose ; but the executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to adminis ter the present government, as it came to his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor. Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people ? Is there any better or equal hope in the world ? In our present differences is either party without faith of being in the right ? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely 87 Abraham Lincoln prevail by the judgment of this great tribuna\ of the American people. By the frame of the government under which we live, this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mis chief ; and have, with equal wisdom, provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people re tain their virtue and vigilance, no administra tion, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years. My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time ; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied, still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it ; while the new administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipi tate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christian ity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still com petent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty. First Inaugural Address In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-country men, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to " pre serve, protect, and defend it." I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field and patriot grave to every living heart and hearth stone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature. Emancipation Proclamation January i, 1863 BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : A Proclamation Whereas, on the twenty-second day of Sep tember, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the fol lowing, to wit : " That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free ; and the Executive Govern ment of the United States, including the mili tary and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom. " That the Executive will, on the first day of 90 Emancipation Proclamation January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof respectively shall then be in rebellion against the United States ; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall in the absence of strong countervailing testimony be deemed conclusive evidence that such State and the people thereof are not then in rebellion against the United States." Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, Presi dent of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as commander-m-chief of the army and navy of the United States, in time of actual armed rebellion against the au thority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for sup pressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty -three, and in accord ance with my purpose so to do, publicly pro claimed for the full period of 100 days from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof, respectively, are this day in re bellion against the United States, the follow ing, to wit : Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the par- Abraham Lincoln ishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemmes, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terre Bonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the forty-eight counties desig nated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, includ ing the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued. And by virtue of the power and for the pur pose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States and parts of States are, and hencefor ward shall be, free ; and that the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons. And I hereby enjoin upon the people so de clared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence ; and I recom mend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages. And I further declare and make known that such persons of suitable condition will be re ceived into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and 92 Emancipation Proclamation other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service. And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity, I invoke the consider ate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the city of Washington, this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and *- L< S J sixty-three, and of the independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh. ABRAHAM LINCOLN. By the President : WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Sec retary of State. Gettysburg Address November 19, 1863 [The national military cemetery at Gettys burg, Pa., was dedicated with solemn ceremo nies on November 19, 1863, as a memorial of the three days battle fought in the previous July, which proved to be the turning-point of the Civil War. The formal oration of the day was pronounced by Edward Everett, but the President was asked to add a word. .His biog rapher, Mr. J. G. Nicolay, has given an inter esting account of the preparation of the address. (Century Magazine, Vol. XLVII.) It was de livered without any effort at oratorical effect ; but .its perfection of feeling and of phrase was instantly and universally recognized. To have composed the Gettysburg address is proof enough, were there no other, of Lincoln s place among the masters of English speech. His let ter to Edward Everett acknowledging the lat- ter s praise, and complimenting Everett in turn, is included in this volume of selections.] FOURSCORE and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the propo sition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so 94 Gettysburg Address conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate we cannot consecrate we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forest what **y did here. It is for us, the living, rather, to be dedi cated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly ad vanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us that from these honored dead we take increased de votion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion ; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain ; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom ; and that govern ment of the people, by the people, for the peo ple, shall not perish from the earth. 95 Speech to i66th Ohio Regiment AtlgUSt 22, 1864 Soldiers : I suppose you are going home to see your families and friends. For the services you have done in this great struggle in which we are all engaged, I present you sincere thanks for myself and the country. I almost always feel inclined, when I happen to say anything to soldiers, to impress upon them, in a few brief remarks, the importance of success in this contest. It is not merely for to-day, but for all time to come, that we should perpetuate for our children s children that great and free government which we have enjoyed all our lives. I beg you to remember this, not merely for my sake, but for yours. I happen, temporarily, to occupy this White House. I am a living witness that any one of your chil dren may look to come here as my father s child has. It is in order that each one of you may have, through this free government which we have enjoyed, an open field and a fair chance for your industry, enterprise, and intelligence ; that you may all have equal privileges in the race of life, with all its desirable human aspira- 96 Speech to i66th Ohio Regiment lions. It is for this the struggle should be maintained, that we may not lose our birthright not only for one, but for two or three years. The nation is worth fighting for, to secure such an inestimable jewel, Response to Serenade November 10, 1864 [This little speech was called forth by the news of Lincoln s re-election as President.] IT has long been a grave question whether any government, not too strong for the liber ties of its people, can be strong enough to main tain its existence in great emergencies. On this point the present rebellion brought our re public to a severe test, and a presidential elec tion occurring in regular course during the rebellion, added not a little to the strain. If the loyal people united were put to the utmost of their strength by the rebellion, must they not fail when divided and partially para lyzed by a political war among themselves? But the election was a necessity. We cannot have free government without elections ; and if the rebellion could force us to forego or post pone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us. The strife of the election is but human nature prac tically applied to the facts of the case. What has occurred in this case must ever recur in similar cases. Human nature will not change. In any future great national trial, compared 98 Response to Serenade with the men of this, we shall have as weak and as strong, as silly and as wise, as bad and as good. Let us, therefore, study the incidents of this as philosophy to learn wisdom from, and none of them as wrongs to be revenged. But the election, along with its incidental and un desirable strife, has done good too. It has demonstrated that a people s government can sustain a national election in the midst of a great civil war. Until now, it has not been known to the world that this was a possibility. It shows, also, how sound and how strong we still are. It shows that, even among candidates of the same party, he who is most devoted to the Union and most opposed to treason can re ceive most of the people s votes. It shows, also, to the extent yet known, that we have more men now than we had when the war be gan. Gold is good in its place, but living, brave, patriotic men are better than gold. But the rebellion continues, and now that the election is over, may not all having a common interest reunite in a common effort to save our common country? For my own part, I have striven and shall strive to avoid placing any obstacle in the way. So long as I have been here I have not willingly planted a thorn in any man s bosom. "While I am deeply sensible to the high compliment of a re-election, and duly grateful, as I trust, to Almighty God for having directed my countrymen to a right conclusion, as I think, for their own good, it adds nothing 99 Abraham Lincoln to my satisfaction that any other man may be disappointed or pained by the result. May I ask those who have not differed with me to join with me in this same spirit toward those who have ? And now let me close by asking three hearty cheers for our brave sol diers and seamen and their gallant and skilful commanders. 100 Reply to Committee on the Electoral Count February 9, 1865 [Lincoln had been renominated for the Presi dency by the Republican Convention which met in Baltimore on June 7, 1864, and was elected on November 8 by a plurality of nearly half a million in the popular vote. In the Electoral College he had 212 votes to 21 for McClellan.J WITH deep gratitude to my countrymen for this mark of their confidence ; with a distrust of my own ability to perform the duty required under the most favorable circumstances, and now rendered doubly difficult by existing na tional perils ; yet with a firm reliance on the strength of our free government, and the event ual loyalty of the people to the just principles upon which it is founded, and above all with an unshaken faith in the Supreme Ruler of na tions, I accept this trust. Be pleased to signify this to the respective Houses of Congress. 101 Second Inaugural Address March 4, 1865 [" The Second Inaugural a written com position, though read to the citizens from the steps of the Capitol well illustrates our words. Mr. Lincoln had to tell his countrymen that, after a four years struggle, the war was practi cally ended. The four years agony, the pas sion of love which he felt for his country, his joy in her salvation, his sense of tenderness for those who fell, of pity mixed with sternness for the men who had deluged the land with blood all the thoughts these feelings inspired were behind Lincoln pressing for expression. A writer of less power would have been over whelmed. Lincoln remained master of the emotional and intellectual situation. In three or four hundred words that burn with the heat of their compression, he tells the history of the war and reads its lesson. No nobler thoughts were ever conceived. No man ever found words more adequate to his desire. Here is the whole tale of the nation s shame and mis ery, of her heroic struggles to free herself there from, and of her victory. Had Lincoln written a hundred times as much more, he would not have said more fully what he desired to say. Every thought receives its complete expression, and there is no word employed which does not directly and manifestly contribute to the devel- 102 Second Inaugural Address opment of the central thought." The (London) Spectator* May zd, 1891. Compare also Lincoln s letter to Thurlow Weed at the close of this volume of selections.] Fellow-countrymen : At this second appear ing to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued, seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the ex piration of four years, during which public dec larations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself ; and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured. On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it all sought to avert it. While the inaugural ad dress was being delivered from this place, de voted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war seeking to dissolve the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war ; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation sur- 103 Abraham Lincoln vive ; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came. One-eighth of the whole population were col ored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and power ful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen , perpetuate, and extend this interest was the ob ject for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war ; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the mag nitude or the duration which it has already at tained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less funda mental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God ; and each in vokes his aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men s faces ; but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. " Woe unto the world because of offenses ! for it must needs be that offenses come ; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we 104 Second Inaugural Address shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through his appointed time, he now wills to re move, and that he gives to both North and South this terrible war, as the woe due to those oy whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine at tributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to him ? Fondly do we hope fervently do we pray that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondman s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be s ink, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, " The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. With malice toward none ; with charity for all ; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in ; to bind up the nation s wounds ; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations. Letters JO? To McClellan February 3, 1862 [General McClellan had succeeded General Scott on November i, 1861, as Commander- in-Chief (under the President) of all the armies of the United States. On January 31, 1862, the President had issued his " Special War Or der No. i," directing a forward movement of the Army of the Potomac. This order conflicted with plans which McClellan had formed, and he remonstrated. Lincoln s reply is a good illustration of his power of compact statement, as well as of his mastery of the military situa tion.] Executive Mansion, Washington, February 3, 1862. MAJOR-GENERAL MCCLELLAN : MY DEAR SIR : You and I have distinct and different plans for a movement of the Army of the Potomac yours to be down the Chesapeake, up the Rappahannock to Urbana, and across land to the terminus of the railroad on the York River ; mine to move directly to a point on the railroad southwest of Manassas. If you will give me satisfactory answers to the following questions, I shall gladly yield my plan to yours. First, Does not your plan involve a greatly 109 Abraham Lincoln larger expenditure of time and money than mine ? Second. Wherein is a victory more certain by your plan than mine ? Third. Wherein is a victory more valuable by your plan than mine ? Fourth. In fact, would it not be less valuable in this, that it would break no great line of the enemy s communications, while mine would ? Fifth. In case of disaster, would not a retreat be more difficult by your plan than mine ? Yours truly, ABRAHAM LINCOLN. MAJOR-GENERAL MCCLELLAN. no To Seward June 28, 1862 [This letter was written to W. H. Seward, the Secretary of State, shortly after the Union victories in Kentucky and Tennessee and upon the Mississippi River, in the spring of 1862.] Executive Mansion, June 28, 1862. HON. W. H. SEWARD : MY DEAR SIR : My view of the present condi tion of the war is about as follows : The evacuation of Corinth and our delay by the flood in the Chickahominy have enabled the enemy to concentrate too much force in Rich mond for McClellan to successfully attack. In fact there soon will be no substantial rebel force anywhere else. But if we send all the force from here to McClellan, the enemy will, before we can know of it, send a force from Richmond and take Washington. Or if a large part of the western army be brought here to McClellan, they will let us have Richmond, and retake Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, etc. What should be done is to hold what we have in the West, open the Mississippi, and take Chattanooga and East Tennessee without more. A reasonable force should in every event be in Abraham Lincoln kept about Washington for its protection. Then let the country give us a hundred thou sand new troops in the shortest possible time, which, added to McClellan directly or indirectly, will take Richmond without endangering any other place which we now hold, and will sub stantially end the war. I expect to maintain this contest until successful, or till I die, or am conquered, or my term expires, or Congress or the country forsake me ; and I would publicly appeal to the country for this new force were it not that I fear a general panic and stampede would follow, so hard it is to have a thing un derstood as it really is. I think the new force should be all, or nearly all, infantry, principally because such can be raised most cheaply and quickly. Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 112 To Greeley AllgUSt 22, 1862 [Horace Greeley, the famous editor of the New York Tribune, though an ardent opponent of slavery, was a constant critic of Lincoln s policy, and indeed opposed his renomination for the Presidency. His erratic editorials con cerning the Administration were a continual source of anxiety to Lincoln.] Executive Mansion, Washington, August 22, 1862. HON. HORACE GREELEY : DEAR SIR : I have just read yours of the igth, addressed to myself through the New York Tribune. If there be in it any statements or assumptions of fact which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not, now and here, argue against them. If there be per ceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend whose heart I have always supposed to be right. As to the policy I " seem to be pursuing," as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt. I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The Abraham Lincoln sooner the national authority can be restored, the nearer the Union will be " the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My para mount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it ; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it ; and if I could save it by freeing some and leav ing others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do be cause I believe it helps to save the Union ; and what I forbear, I forbear because 1 do not be lieve it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more when ever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors, and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty ; and I intend no modi fication of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free. Yours, A. LINCOLN. 114 To the Workingmen of Manchester January 19, 1863 [The blockade of Confederate ports during the war was naturally a severe blow to the Eng lish manufacturing centres like Manchester, which had depended upon the Southern States for their supply of cotton. But the working classes of England, in marked contrast with the upper classes, displayed strong Union sympa thies throughout the struggle. An address from the Manchester workingmen called forth this admirable reply from the President.] Executive Mansion, Washington, January ig, 1863. To THE WORKINGMEN OF MANCHESTER : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the ad dress and resolutions which you sent me on the eve of the new year. When I came, on the 4th of March, 1861, through a free and constitu tional election to preside in the Government of the United States, the country was found at the verge of civil war. Whatever might have been the cause, or whosesoever the fault, one duty, paramount to all others, was before me, namely, to maintain and preserve at once the Constitu tion and the integrity of the Federal Republic. A conscientious purpose to perform this duty is the key to all the measures of administration which have been and to all which will hereafter be pursued. Under our frame of government Abraham Lincoln and my official oath, I could not depart from this purpose if I would. It is not always in the power of governments to enlarge or restrict the scope of moral results which follow the policies that they may deem it necessary for the public safety from time to time to adopt. I have understood well that the duty of self- preservation rests solely with the American peo ple ; but I have at the same time been aware that favor or disfavor of foreign nations might have a material influence in enlarging or pro longing the struggle with disloyal men in which the country is engaged. A fair examination of history has served to authorize a belief that the past actions and influences of the United States were generally regarded as having been bene ficial toward mankind. I have, therefore, reck oned upon the forbearance of nations. Circum stances to some of which you kindly allude induce me especially to expect that if justice and good faith should be practised by the United States, they would encounter no hostile influence on the part of Great Britain. It is now a pleasant duty to acknowledge the dem onstration you have given of your desire that a spirit of amity and peace toward this country may prevail in the councils of your Queen, who is respected and esteemed in your own country only more than she is by the kindred nation which has its home on this side of the Atlantic. I know and deeply deplore the sufferings which the workingmen at Manchester, and in 116 To Workingmen of Manchester all Europe, are called to endure in this crisis. It has been often and studiously represented that the attempt to overthrow this government, which was built upon the foundation of human rights, and to substitute for it one which should rest exclusively on the basis of human slavery, was likely to obtain the favor of Europe. Through the action of our disloyal citizens, the workingmen of Europe have been subjected to severe trials, for the purpose of forcing their sanction to that attempt. Under the circum stances, I cannot but regard your decisive utter ances upon the question as an instance of sublime Christian heroism which has not been surpassed in any age or in any country. It is indeed an energetic and reinspiring assurance of the inherent power of truth, and of the ulti mate and universal triumph of justice, human ity, and freedom. I do not doubt that the sen timents you have expressed will be sustained by your great nation ; and, on the other hand, I have no hesitation in assuring you that they will excite admiration, esteem, and the most re ciprocal feelings of friendship among the Ameri can people. I hail this interchange of senti ment, therefore, as an augury that whatever else may happen, whatever misfortune may be fall your country or my own, the peace and friendship which now exist between the two nations will be, as it shall be my desire to make them, perpetual. ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 117 To Hooker January 26, 1863 [This letter to General Joseph Hooker, ap pointing him the successor of General Burnside as commander of the Army of the Potomac, is one of Lincoln s most characteristic utterances frank, kind, and gravely ironical. Notice the phrase, " I will risk the dictatorship."] Executive Mansion, Washington, January 26, 1863. MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER : GENERAL : I have placed you at the head of the Army of the Potomac. Of course I have done this upon what appear to me to be suffi cient reasons, and yet I think it best for you to know that there are some things in regard to which I am not quite satisfied with you. I be lieve you to be a brave and skilful soldier, which of course I like. I also believe you do not mix politics with your profession, in which you are right. You have confidence in your self, which is a valuable if not an indispensable quality. You are ambitious, which, within rea sonable bounds, does good rather than harm ; but I think that during General Burnside s command of the army you have taken counsel of your ambition and thwarted him as much as you could, in which you did a great wrong to To Hooker the country and to a most meritorious and hon orable brother officer. I have heard, in such a way as to believe it, of your recently saying that both the army and the government needed a dictator. Of course it was not for this, but in spite of it, that I have given you the command. Only those generals who gain successes can set up dictators. What I now ask of you is mili tary success, and I will risk the dictatorship. The government will support you to the utmost of its ability, which is neither more nor less than it has done and will do for all commanders. I much fear that the spirit which you have aided to infuse into the army, of criticising their com mander and withholding confidence from him, will now turn upon you. I shall assist you as far as I can to put it down. Neither you nor Napoleon, if he were alive again, could get any good out of an army while such a spirit prevails in it ; and now beware of rashness. Beware of rashness, but with energy and sleepless vigi lance go forward and give us victories. Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 119 To Burnside July 27, 1863 [This telegram is noticeable for its brief but comprehensive description of General Grant.] War Department, Washington, July 27, 1863. MAJOR-GENERAL BURNSIDE, Cincinnati, Ohio : Let me explain. In General Grant s first de spatch after the fall of Vicksburg, he said, among other things, he would send the Ninth Corps to you. Thinking it would be pleasant to you, I asked the Secretary of War to tele graph you the news. For some reasons never mentioned to us by General Grant, they have not been sent, though we have seen outside in timations that they took part in the expedition against Jackson. General Grant is a copious worker and fighter, but a very meager writer or telegrapher. No doubt he changed his pur pose in regard to the Ninth Corps for some sufficient reason, but has forgotten to notify us of it. A. LINCOLN. 120 To Edward Everett November 20, 1863 [See the note prefixed to .Lincoln s Gettys burg address.] Executive Mansion, Washington, November 20, 1863. HON. EDWARD EVERETT : MY DEAR SIR : Your kind note of to-day is re ceived. In our respective parts yesterday, you could not have been excused to make a short address, nor I a long one. I am pleased to know that, in your judgment, the little I did say was not entirely a failure. Of course I knew Mr. Everett would not fail, and yet, while the whole discourse was eminently satisfactory, and will be of great value, there were passages in it which transcended my expectations. The point made against the theory of the General Government being only an agency whose principals are the States, was new to me, and, as I think, is one of the best arguments for the national suprem acy. The tribute to our noble women for their angel ministering to the suffering soldiers sur passes in its way, as do the subjects of it, what ever has gone before. Our sick boy, for whom you kindly inquire, we hope is past the worst. Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 121 To Grant April 30, 1864 [The spring campaign of 1864 marked " the beginning of the end" of the Rebellion. This letter is one of many proofs of Lincoln s abso lute confidence in Grant s generalship.] Executive Mansion, Washington, April 30, 1864. LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT : Not expecting to see you again before the spring campaign opens, I wish to express in this way my entire satisfaction with what you have done up to this time, so far as I under stand it. The particulars of your plans I neither know nor seek to know. You are vigilant and self-reliant ; and, pleased with this, I wish not to obtrude any constraints or restraints upon you. While I am very anxious that any great disaster or capture of our men in great numbers shall be avoided, I know these points are less likely to escape your attention than they would be mine. If there is anything wanting which is within my power to give, do not fail to let me know it. And now, w ; th a brave army and a just cause, may God sustain you. Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 122 To Mrs. Bixby November 21, 1864 Executive Mansion, Washington, November 21, 1864. MRS. BIXBY, Boston, Massachusetts : DEAR MADAM : I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Ad jutant-General of Massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died glori ously on the field of battle. I feel how weak and fruitless must be any words of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save. I pray that our heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom. Yours very sincerely and respectfully, ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 123 To Thurlow Weed March 15, 1865 [This most interesting letter, written a month before Lincoln s assassination, should be read in connection with the second inaugural ad dress.] Executive Mansion, Washington, March 15, 1865. DEAR MR. WEED : Every one likes a compliment. Thank you for yours on my little notification speech and on the recent inaugural address. I expect the lat ter to wear as well as perhaps better than anything I have produced ; but I believe it is not immediately popular. Men are not flattered by being shown that there has been a differ ence of purpose between the Almighty and them. To deny it, however, in this case, is to deny that there is a God governing the world. It is a truth which I thought needed to be told, and, as whatever of humiliation there is in it falls most directly on myself, 1 thought others might afford for me to tell it. Truly yours, A. LINCOLN. 124 Appendix 125 " Lincoln s Lost Speech"* THE Republican party was first organized in Illinois on May 29th, 1856, at a State conven tion held in Bloom ington. It was here that Abraham Lincoln made the speech which defi nitely severed his relations with the Whigs and allied him to the new organization. For two years previous he had been slowly working toward this change. The failure of his political ambitions in the summer of .^849 had decided him henceforth LO devote himself to the law. For nearly six years he had kept this resolution. Then, in the spring of 1854, the passage by Congress of the Kansas-Nebraska bill repealing the Missouri Compromise of 1820, and establish ing the principle of popular sovereignty, had so aroused him that he flung himself again into politics. Elected to the legislature in the fall of 1854, Lincoln had resigned in order to contest the vacant seat in the United States Senate. He showed in this campaign how much more im portant he considered it to insure legislation against slavery extension than to elect one of his o\vn party ; for when he found that the bal- * Copyright. 1896, by Sarah A. Whitney. 127 Abraham Lincoln ance of po\ver in the legislature which was to elect the senator was held by five anti-Nebraska Democrats, he persuaded his supporters to go over to the five, whom he knew to be of the same mind as himself in regard to the extension of slavery, rather than to allow a combination on a man who would oppose the measure but lukewarmly. When, in the spring of 1856, the Illinois op ponents of slavery extension had sufficient strength to form another branch of the now rapidly growing Republican party, Lincoln was ready to join them. The speech he made at the first convention was long known in Illinois as " Lincoln s Lost Speech," a name given it because the reporters were so carried away by his eloquence that they forgot to take notes and could give no report to their papers. As Lin coln himself refused to try to write it out, it was supposed to have been, in fact, a "lost speech." It seems, however, that though the reporters, tinder the effect of Lincoln s eloquence, all lost their heads, there was at least one auditor who had enough control to pursue his usual habit of making notes of the speeches he heard. This was a young lawyer on the same circuit as Lin coln, Mr. H. C. Whitney. For some three weeks before the convention, Lincoln and Whit ney had been attending court at Danville. They had discussed the political situation in the State carefully, and to Whitney, Lincoln had 128 " Lincoln s Lost Speech " stated his convictions and determinations. Knowing as he did that Lincoln had not writ ten out his speech, Whitney went to the con vention intending to take notes. Fortunately, he had a cool enough head to keep to his pur pose. These notes Whitney kept for many years, always intending to write them out, but never attending to it, until in 1896 McClure s Magazine learned that he had them, and per suaded him to carry out his intention. Mr. Whitney does not claim that he has made a per fect report. He does claim, however, that the argument is correct, and that in many cases the expressions are exact. The speech has been submitted to several of those who were at the Bloomington convention, among others to Mr. Joseph Medill, editor of the Chicago Tribune, who says : Mr. Medill s Letter {Slightly condensed) Chicago, May 15, i8g6. EDITOR MCCLURE S MAGAZINE, NEW YORK CITY : DEAR SIR : You invited my attention recently to H. C. Whitney s report of the great radical " anti-Nebraska" speech of Mr. Lincoln, deliv ered in Bloomington, May 29th, 1856, before the first Republican State Convention of Illinois ; and, as I was present as a delegate and heard it, you ask me to state how accurately, accord- 129 Abraham Lincoln ing to my best recollection, it is reproduced in this report. I have carefully and reflectively read it, and taking into account that Mr. Whitney did not take down the speech stenographically, but only took notes, and afterward wrote them out in full, he has reproduced with remarkable ac curacy what Mr. Lincoln said, largely in his identical language and partly in synonymous terms. The report is close enough in thought and word to recall the wonderful speech deliv ered forty years ago with vivid freshness. No one was expecting a great speech at the time. We all knew that he could say something worthy of the occasion, but nobody anticipated such a Demosthenean outburst of oratory. There was great political excitement at the time in Illinois and all over the old Northwest, growing out of the efforts of the South to introduce slavery into Kansas and Nebraska. The free-soil men were highly wrought up in opposition, and Mr. Lin coln partook of their feelings. I am unable to point out those sentences and parts of the reported speech which vary most in phraseology from the precise language he used, because there is an approximation of his words in every part of it. The ideas uttered are all there. The sequence of argument is accurately given. The invectives hurled at pro-slavery aggression are not exaggerated in the report of the speech. Some portions of the argument citing pro-slavery aggressions seem rather more 130 " Lincoln s Lost Speech " elaborate than he delivered ; but he was speak ing under a high degree of excitement, and the convention was in a responsive mood, and it is impossible to be certain about it. The least that can be said is, that the Whitney report, not being shorthand, is yet a remarkably good one, and is the only one in existence that repro duces the speech. During all the preceding year the public mind of the West had been lashed into a high state of commotion over the repeal of the Missouri Compromise the year before, which had ex cluded the introduction of slavery into all terri tory north of 36.30 degrees. Taking advantage of the repeal, the slaveholders of Missouri and other slave States, aided by the administration of Franklin Pierce, were striving to convert Kansas and Nebraska into slave States. This bad work was carried on actively in the spring of 1856. Many houses of the free-State men of the new city of Lawrence, including their hotel, were burnt. Printing-offices were destroyed ; store goods were carried off ; horses and cattle were stolen ; sharp fights were taking place ; men were being killed, and civil war was rag ing in " bleeding Kansas." While this state of things was going on, the first State Republican Convention ever held in Illinois assembled in Bloomington, May 29th, 1856. It was composed of Abolitionists, Free- Soil Whigs, and " Anti-Nebraska" Democrats. Owen Lovejoy embodied the first named, Abra- Abraham Lincoln ham Lincoln and John M. Palmer, the second and third elements ; the whole united, made the new Republican party. At this Bloomington Republican convention delegates were appointed who voted to nomi nate Fremont for President. Abraham Lincoln was placed at the head of the State electoral ticket, and Colonel Bissell (of the Mexican War) was nominated for Governor, and free-soil reso lutions were passed. Mr. John M. Palmer pre sided and made a stirring free-soil speech. Mr. Emery, a "free-State" man just from "bleeding Kansas," told of the "border ruffian" raids from Missouri upon the free-State settlers in Kansas : the burnings, robberies, and mur ders they were then committing ; and asked for help to repel them. When he finished, Lincoln was vociferously called for from all parts of Major s large hall. He came forward and took the platform beside the presiding officer. At first his voice was shrill and hesitating. There was a curious introspective look in his eyes, which lasted for a few moments. Then his voice began to move steadily and smoothly for ward, and the modulations were under perfect control from thenceforward to the finish. He warmed up as he went on, and spoke more rap idly ; he looked a foot taller as he straightened himself to his full height, and his eyes flashed fire ; his countenance became wrapped in in tense emotion ; he rushed along like a thunder storm. He prophesied war as the outcome of 132 "Lincoln s Lost Speech" these aggressions, and poured forth hot denun ciations upon the slave power. The convention was kept in an uproar, applauding and cheer ing and stamping ; and this reacted on the speaker, and gave him a tongue of fire. The thrilling scene in that old Bloomington hall forty years ago arises in my mind as vividly as the day after its enactment. There stood Lincoln in the forefront, erect, tall, and majestic in appearance, hurling thun derbolts at the foes of freedom, while the great convention roared its endorsement ! I never witnessed such a scene before or since. As he described the aims and aggressions of the un appeasable slaveholders and the servility of their Northern allies as illustrated by the per fidious repeal of the Missouri Compromise two years previously, and their grasping after the rich prairies of Kansas and Nebraska, to blight them with slavery and to deprive free labor of this rich inheritance, and exhorted the friends of freedom to resist them to the death, the con vention went fairly wild. It paralleled or ex ceeded the scene in the Revolutionary Virginia convention of eighty-one years before, when Patrick Henry invoked death if liberty could not be preserved, and said, After all we must fight." Strange, too, that this same man re ceived death a few years afterward while con ferring freedom on the slave race and preserv ing the American Union from dismemberment. While Mr. Lincoln did not write out even a Abraham Lincoln memorandum of his Bloomington speech before hand, neither was it extemporary. He intend ed days before to make it, and conned it over in his mind in outline, and gathered his facts, and arranged his arguments in regular order, and trusted to the inspiration of the occasion to furnish him the diction with which to clothe the skeleton of his great oration. It is difficult to name any speech by another orator delivered on the same subject about that time or subse quently that equalled it not excepting those made by Sumner, Seward, or Chase in strength of argument or dramatic power. It was my journalistic duty, though a dele gate to the convention, to make a longhand re port of the speeches delivered, for the Chicago Tribune. I did make a few paragraphs of re port of what Lincoln said in the first eight or ten minutes ; but I became so absorbed in his magnetic oratory that I forgot myself and ceased to take notes, and joined with the con vention in cheering and stamping and clapping to the end of his speech. I well remember that after Lincoln had sat down and calm had suc ceeded the tempest, I waked out of a sort of hypnotic trance, and then thought of my report for the Tribitne. There was nothing written but an abbreviated introduction. It was some sort of satisfaction to find that I had not been " scooped," as all the newspaper men pres ent had been equally carried away by the excitement caused by the wonderful oration, 134 " Lincoln s Lost Speech " and had made no report or sketch of the speech. It was fortunate, however, that a cool-nerved young lawyer and ardent friend of Lincoln s who was present, with nimble fingers took down so much of the exact words as they fell from the great orator s lips, that he was after ward able to reproduce the speech almost iden tically as it was uttered, and has thus saved it to posterity. Mr. Lincoln was strongly urged by party friends to write out his speech, to be used as a campaign document for the Fremont Presiden tial contest of that year ; but he declared that 4 it would be impossible for him to recall the language he used on that occasion, as he had spoken under some excitement. My belief is that, after Mr. Lincoln cooled down, he was rather pleased that his speech had not been reported, as it was too radical in expression on the slavery question for the diges tion of central and southern Illinois at that time, and that he preferred to let it stand as a remem brance in the minds of his audience. But be that as it may, the effect of it was such on his hearers that he bounded to the leadership of the new Republican party of Illinois, and no man afterward ever thought of disputing that po sition with him. On that occasion he planted the seed which germinated into a Presidential candidacy, and that gave him the nomination over Seward at the Chicago Convention of 1860. 135 Abraham Lincoln which placed him in the Presidential chair, there to complete his predestined work of de stroying slavery and making freedom univer sal, but yielding his life as a sacrifice for the glorious deeds. I am, very respectfully yours, JOSEPH MEDILL. Mr. Lincoln s Speech Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen : I was over at [cries of "Platform!" "Take the plat form !"] I say, that while I was at Danville Court, some of our friends of anti-Nebraska got together in Springfield and elected me as one delegate to represent old Sangamon with them in this convention, and I am here certainly as a sympathizer in this movement and by virtue of that meeting and selection. But we can hardly be called delegates strictly, inasmuch as, prop erly speaking, we represent nobody but our selves. I think it altogether fair to say that we have no anti-Nebraska party in Sangamon, although there is a good deal of anti- Nebraska feeling there ; but I say for myself, and I think I may speak also for my colleagues, that we who are here fully approve of the platform and of all that has been done [a voice : " Yes ! "] ; and even if we are not regularly delegates, it will be right for me to answer your call to speak. I suppose we truly stand for the public sentiment of Sangamon on the great question 136 " Lincoln s Lost Speech " of the repeal, although we do not yet represent many numbers who have taken a distinct po sition on the question. We are in a trying time it ranges above mere party and this movement to call a halt and turn our steps backward needs all the help and good counsels it can get ; for unless popu lar opinion makes itself very strongly felt, and a change is made in our present course, blood ivtll floiv on account of Nebraska, and broth er s hand will be raised against brother! [The last sentence was uttered in such an ear nest, impressive, if not, indeed, tragic, manner, as to make a cold chill creep over me. Others gave a similar experience.] I have listened with great interest to the ear nest appeal made to Illinois men by the gentle man from Lawrence [James S. Emery] who has just addressed us so eloquently and forci bly. I was deeply moved by his statement of the wrongs done to free-State men out there. I think it just to say that all true men North should sympathize with them, and ought to be willing to do any possible and needful thing to right their wrongs. But we must not prom ise what we ought not, lest we be called on to perform what we cannot ; we must be calm and moderate, and consider the whole diffi culty, and determine what is possible and just. We must not be led by excitement and passion to do that which our sober judgments would not approve in our cooler moments. We have 137 Abraham Lincoln higher aims ; we will have more serious busi ness than to dally with temporary measures. We are here to stand firmly for a principle to stand firmly for a right. We know that great political and moral wrongs are done, and outrages committed, and we denounce those wrongs and outrages, although we cannot, at present, do much more. But we desire to reach out beyond those personal outrages and estab lish a rule that will apply to all, and so prevent any future outrages. We have seen to-day that every shade of popular opinion is represented here, with Free dom or rather Free-Soil as the basis. We have come together as in some sort representatives of popular opinion against the extension of slavery into territory now free in fact as well as by law, and the pledged word of the states men of the nation who are now no more. We come we are here assembled together to pro test as well as we can against a great wrong, and to take measures, as well as we now can, to make that wrong right ; to place the nation, as far as it may be possible now, as it was be fore the repeal of the Missouri Compromise ; and the plain way to do this is to restore the Compromise, and to demand and determine that Kansas shall be free ! [Immense ap plause.] While we affirm, and reaffirm, if nec essary, our devotion to the principles of the Declaration of Independence, let our practical work here be limited to the above. We know 138 " Lincoln s Lost Speech " that there is not a perfect agreement of senti ment here on the public questions which might be rightfully considered in this convention, and that the indignation which we all must feel can not be helped ; but all of us must give up some thing for the good of the cause. There is one desire which is uppermost in the mind, one wish common to us all to which no dissent will be made ; and I counsel you earnestly to bury all resentment, to sink all personal feel ing, make all things work to a common purpose in which we are united and agreed about, and which all present will agree is absolutely neces sary which must be done by any rightful mode if there be such : Slavery must be kept out of Kansas ! [Applause.] The test the pinch is right there. If we lose Kansas to freedom, an example will be set which will prove fatal to freedom in the end. We, there fore, in the language of the Bible , must " lay the axe to the root of the tree." Temporizing will not do longer ; now is the time for decision for firm, persistent, resolute action. [Ap plause.] The Nebraska bill, or rather Nebraska law, is not one of wholesome legislation, but was and is an act of legislative usurpation, whose result, if not indeed intention, is to make slavery national ; and unless headed off in some effec tive way, we are in a fair way to see this land of boasted freedom converted into a land of slavery in fact. [Sensation.] Just open your 139 Abraham Lincoln two eyes, and see if this be not so. I need do no more than state, to command universal ap proval, that almost the entire North, as well as a large following in the border States, is radi cally opposed to the planting of slavery in free territory. Probably in a popular vote through out the nation nine-tenths of the voters in the free States, and at least one-half in the border States, if they could express their sentiments freely, would vote NO on such an issue ; and it is safe to say that two-thirds of the votes of the entire nation would be opposed to it. And yet, in spite of this overbalancing of sentiment in this free country, we are in a fair way to see Kansas present itself for admission as a slave State. Indeed, it is a felony, by the local law of Kansas, to deny that slavery exists there even now. By every principle of law, a negro in Kansas is free ; yet the bogus legislature makes it an infamous crime to tell him that he is free !* The party lash and the fear of ridicule will * Statutes of Kansas, 1855, Chapter 151, Section 12. If any free person, by speaking or by writing, assert or maintain that persons have not the right to hold slaves in this Territory, or shall introduce into this Territory, print, publish, write, circulate . . . any book, paper, magazine, pamphlet, or circular containing any denial of the right of persons to hold slaves in this Territory, such person shall be deemed guilty of felony, and pun ished by imprisonment at hard labor for a term of not less than two years. Sec. 13. No person who is conscientiously opposed to holding slaves, or who does not admit the right to hold slaves in this Territory, shall sit as a juror on the trial of any prosecution for any violation of any sec tions of this Act. 140 "Lincoln s Lost Speech" overawe justice and liberty ; for it is a singular fact, but none the less a fact, and well known by the most common experience, that men will do things under the terror of the party lash that they would not on any account or for any con sideration do otherwise ; while men who will march up to the mouth of a loaded cannon with out shrinking, will run from the terrible name of " Abolitionist," even when pronounced by a worthless creature whom they, with good rea son, despise. For instance to press this point a little Judge Douglas introduced his anti- Nebraska bill in January ; and we had an ex tra session of our legislature in the succeeding February, in which were seventy-five Demo crats ; and at a party caucus, fully attended, there were just three votes out of the whole seventy-five, for the measure. But in a few days orders came on from Washington, com manding them to approve the measure ; the party lash was applied, and it was brought up again in caucus, and passed by a large major ity. The masses were against it, but party necessity carried it ; and it was passed through the lower house of Congress against the will of the people, for the same reason. Here is where the greatest danger lies that, while we profess to be a government of law and reason, law will give way to violence on demand of this awful and crushing power. Like the great Jugger naut I think that is the name the great idol, it crushes everything that comes in its way, and 141 Abraham Lincoln makes a or as I read once, in a black-letter law book, "a slave is a human being who is legally not a person, but a thing." And if the safeguards to liberty are broken down, as is now attempted, when they have made things of all the free negroes, how long, think you, be fore they will begin to make things of poor white men ? [Applause.] Be not deceived. Revolutions do not go backward. The founder of the Democratic party declared that all men were created equal. His successor in the lead ership has written the word " white" before men, making it read " all white men are cre ated equal." Pray, will or may not the Know- nothings, if they should get in power, add the word " protestant," making it read " all prot est ant white men" ? Meanwhile the hapless negro is the fruitful subject of reprisals in other quarters. John Pettit, whom Tom Benton paid his respects to, you will recollect, calls the immortal Declara tion "a self-evident lie ;" while at the birth place of freedom in the shadow of Bunker Hill and of the " cradle of liberty," at the home of the Adamses and Warren and Otis Choate, from our side of the house, dares to fritter away the birthday promise of liberty by proclaiming the Declaration to be "a string of glittering generalities ;" and the Southern Whigs, work ing hand in hand with pro-slavery Democrats, are making Choate s theories practical. Thomas Jefferson, a slaveholder, mindful of the moral 142 " Lincoln s Lost Speech" element in slavery, solemnly declared that he "trembled for his country when he remem bered that God is just ;" while Judge Douglas, with an insignificant wave of the hand, " don t care whether slavery is voted up or voted down." Now, if slavery is right, or even nega tive, he has a right to treat it in this trifling manner. But if it is a moral and political wrong, as all Christendom considers it to be, how can he answer to God for this attempt to spread and fortify it ? [Applause.] But no man, and Judge Douglas no more than any other, can maintain a negative, or merely neutral, position on this question ; and, accordingly, he avows that the Union was made by white men and/0r white men and their de scendants. As matter of fact, the first branch of the proposition is historically true ; the gov ernment was made by white men, and they were and are the superior race. This I admit. But the corner-stone of the government, so to speak, was the declaration that " all men are created equal," and all entitled to " life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [Applause.] And not only so, but the framers of the Con stitution were particular to keep out of that in strument the word " slave," the reason being that slavery would ultimately come to an end, and they did not wish to have any reminder that in this free country human beings were ever prostituted to slavery. [Applause.] Nor is it any argument that we are superior and the 143 Abraham Lincoln negro inferior that he has but one talent while we have ten. Let the negro possess the little he has in independence ; if he has but one tal ent, he should be permitted to keep the little he has. [Applause.] But slavery will endure no test of reason or logic ; and yet its advo cates, like Douglas, use a sort of bastard logic, or noisy assumption, it might better be termed, like the above, in order to prepare the mind for the gradual, but none the less certain, encroach ments of the Moloch of slavery upon the fair domain of freedom. But however much you may argue upon it, or smother it in soft phrases, slavery can only be maintained by force by violence. The repeal of the Missouri Compro mise was by violence. It was a violation of both law and the sacred obligations of honor, to overthrow and trample underfoot a solemn compromise, obtained by the fearful loss to freedom of one of the fairest of our Western domains. Congress violated the will and con fidence of its constituents in voting for the bill ; and while public sentiment, as shown by the elections of 1854, demanded the restoration of this compromise, Congress violated its trust by refusing, simply because it had the force of numbers to hold on to it. And murderous vio lence is being used now, in order to force slavery on to Kansas ; for it cannot be done in any other way. [Sensation.] The necessary result was to establish the rule of violence force, instead of the rule of law 144 "Lincoln s Lost Speech" and reason ; to perpetuate and spread slavery, and, in time, to make it general. We see it at both ends of the line. In Washington, on the very spot where the outrage was started, the fearless Sumner is beaten to insensibility, and is now slowly dying ; while senators who claim to be gentlemen and Christians stood by, coun tenancing the act, and even applauding it after ward in their places in the Senate. Even Douglas, our man, saw it all and was within helping distance, yet let the murderous blows fall unopposed. Then, at the other end of the line, at the very time Sumner was being mur dered," Lawrence was being destroyed for the crime of Freedom. It was the most prominent stronghold of liberty in Kansas, and must give way to the all-dominating power of slavery. Only two days ago, Judge Trumbull found it necessary to propose a bill in the Senate to pre vent a general civil war and to restore peace in Kansas. We live in the midst of alarms ; anxiety be clouds the future ; we expect some new disaster with each newspaper we read. Are we in a healthful political state ? Are not the tenden cies plain ? Do not the signs of the times point plainly the way in which we are going ? [Sen sation.] In the early days of the Constitution slavery was recognized, by South and North alike, as an evil, and the division of sentiment about it was not controlled by geographical lines or con- 145 Abraham Lincoln siderations of climate, but by moral and philan thropic views. Petitions for the abolition of slavery were presented to the very first Con gress by Virginia and Massachusetts alike. To show the harmony which prevailed, I will state that a fugitive slave law was passed in 1793, with no dissenting voice in the Senate, and but seven dissenting votes in the House. It was, however, a wise law, moderate, and, under the Constitution, a just one. Twenty-five years later, a more stringent law was proposed and defeated ; and thirty-five years after that, the present law, drafted by Mason of Virginia, was passed by Northern votes. I am not, just now, complaining of this law, but I am trying to show how the current sets ; for the proposed law of 1817 was far less offensive than the pres ent one. In 1774 the Continental Congress pledged itself, without a dissenting vote, to wholly discontinue the slave trade, and to neither purchase nor import any slave ; and less than three months before the passage of the Declaration of Independence, the same Congress which adopted that declaration unani mously resolved " that no slave be imported into any of the thirteen United Colonies." [Great applause.] On the second day of July, 1776, the draft of a Declaration of Independence was reported to Congress by the committee, and in it the slave trade was characterized as "an execrable com merce," as " a piratical warfare," as the " op- 146 " Lincoln s Lost Speech " probrium of infidel powers," and as " a cruel war against human nature. " [Applause.] All agreed on this except South Carolina and Georgia, and in order to preserve harmony, and from the necessity of the case, these ex pressions were omitted. Indeed, abolition soci eties existed as far south as Virginia ; and it is a well-known fact that "Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Lee, Henry, Mason, and Pendleton were qualified abolitionists, and much more radical on that subject than we of the Whig and Democratic parties claim to be to-day. On March i, 1784, Virginia ceded to the confedera tion all its lands lying northwest of the Ohio- River. Jefferson, Chase of Maryland, and Howell of Rhode Island, as a committee on that and territory thereafter to be ceded, re ported that no slavery should exist after the year 1800. Had this report been adopted, not only the Northwest, but Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi also would have been free ; but it required the assent of nine States to ratify it. North Carolina was divided, and thus its vote was lost ; and Delaware, Georgia, and New Jersey refused to vote. In point of fact, as it was, it was assented to by six States. Three years later, on a square vote to exclude slavery from the Northwest, only one vote, and that from New York, was against it. And yet, thirty-seven years later, five thousand citizens of Illinois out of a voting mass of less than twelve thousand, deliberately, after a long and 147 Abraham Lincoln heated contest, voted to introduce slavery in Illinois ; and, to-day, a large party in the free State of Illinois are willing to vote to fasten the shackles of slavery on the fair domain of Kan sas, notwithstanding it received the dowry of freedom long before its birth as a political com munity. I repeat, therefore, the question, Is it not plain in what direction we are tending ? [Sensation.] In the colonial time, Mason, Pendleton, and Jefferson were as hostile to slavery in Virginia as Otis, Ames, and the Adamses were in Massachusetts ; and Virginia made as earnest an effort to get rid of it as old Massachusetts did. But circumstances were against them and they failed ; but not that the good will of its leading men was lacking. Yet within less than fifty years Virginia changed its tune, and made negro-breeding for the cotton and sugar States one of its leading industries. [Laughter and applause.] In the Constitutional Convention, George Mason of Virginia made a more violent aboli tion speech than my friends Lovejoy or Cod ding would desire to make here to-day a speech which could not be safely repeated any where on Southern soil in this enlightened year. But while there were some differences of opin ion on this subject even then, discussion was allowed ; but as you see by the Kansas slave code, which, as you know, is the Missouri slave code, merely ferried across the river, it is a felony to even express an opinion hostile to that 148 " Lincoln s Lost Speech " foul blot in the land of Washington and the Declaration of Independence. [Sensation.] In Kentucky my State in 1849, on a test vote, the mighty influence of Henry Clay and many other good men there could not get a symptom of expression in favor of gradual emancipation on a plain issue of marching tow ard the light of civilization with Ohio and Illinois ; but the State of Boone and Hardin and Henry Clay, with a nigger under each arm, took the black trail toward the deadly swamps of barbarism. Is there can there be any doubt about this thing? And is there any doubt that we must all lay aside our prej udices and march, shoulder to shoulder, in the great army of Freedom ? [Applause.] Every Fourth of July our young orators all proclaim this to be " the land of the free and the home of the brave !" Well, now, when you orators get that off next year, and, may be, this very year, how would you like some old griz zled farmer to get up in the grove and deny it ? [Laughter.] How would you like that ? But suppose Kansas comes in as a slave State, and all the " border ruffians" have barbecues about it, and free-State men come trailing back to the dishonored North, like whipped dogs with their tails between their legs, it is ain t it ? evident that this is no more the "land of the free ;" and if we let it go so, we won t dare to say home of the brave" out loud. [Sensation and confusion.] 149 Abraham Lincoln Can any man doubt that, even in spite of the people s will, slavery will triumph through vio lence, unless that will be made manifest and enforced ? Even Governor Reeder claimed at the outset that the contest in Kansas was to be fair, but he got his eyes open at last ; and I be lieve that, as a result of this moral and physical violence, Kansas will soon apply for admission as a slave State. And yet we can t mistake that the people don t want it so, and that it is a land which is free both by natural and politi cal law. No law is free law ! Such is the understanding of all Christendom. In the Som erset case, decided nearly a century ago, the great Lord Mansfield held that slavery was of such a nature that it must take its rise in posi tive (as distinguished from natural} law ; and that in no country or age could it be traced back to any other source. Will some one please tell me where is the positive law that establishes slavery in Kansas ? [A voice : The bogiis laws."] Aye, the bogus laws ! And, on the same principle, a gang of Missouri horse-thieves could come into Illinois and declare horse-steal ing to be legal [Laughter] , and it would be just as legal as slavery is in Kansas. But by ex press statute, in the land of Washington and Jefferson, we may soon be brought face to face with the discreditable fact of showing to tiie world by our acts that we prefer slavery to free domdarkness to light ! [Sensation ] It is, I believe, a principle in law that when 150 "Lincoln s Lost Speech" one party to a contract violates it so grossly as to chiefly destroy the object for which it is made, the other party may rescind it. I will ask Browning if that ain t good law. [Voices : " Yes !"] Well, now if that be right, I go for rescinding the whole, entire Missouri Compro mise and thus turning Missouri into a free State ; and I should like to know the difference should like for any one to point out the differ ence between oitr making a free State of Mis souri and their making a slave State of Kansas. [Great applause.] There ain t one bit of differ ence, except that our way would be a great mercy to humanity. But I have never said and the Whig party has never said and those who oppose the Nebraska bill do not as a body say, that they have any intention of interfering with slavery in the slave States. Our platform says just the contrary. We allow slavery to ex ist in the slave States not because slavery is right or good, but from the necessities of our Union. We grant a fugitive slave law because it is so " nominated in the bond ;" because our fathers so stipulated had to and we are bound to carry- out this agreement. But they did not agree to introduce slavery in regions where it did not previously exist. On the contrary, they said by their example and teachings that they did not deem it expedient did not consider it right to do so ; and it is wise and right to do just as they did about it [Voices : " Good !"], and that is what w x e propose not to interfere 151 Abraham Lincoln with slavery where it exists (we have never tried to do it), and to give them areasonab:e and efficient fugitive slave law. [A voice : "No!"] I say YES! [Applause.] It wts part of the bargain, and I m for living up to it ; but I go no further ; I m not bound to do more, and I won t agree any further. [Great ap plause.] We, here in Illinois, should feel especial)/ proud of the provision of the Missouri Comprc - mise excluding slavery from what is now Kan sas ; for an Illinois man, Jesse B. Thomas, \va> its father. Henry Clay, who is credited with the authorship of the Compromise in general terms, did not even vote for that provision, bu: only advocated the ultimate admission by a sec ond compromise ; and Thomas was, beyond all controversy, the real author of the " slavery re striction" branch of the Compromise. To show the generosity of the Northern members toward the Southern side ; on a test vote to exclude slavery from Missouri, ninety voted not to ex clude, and eighty-seven to exclude, every vote from the slave States being ranged with the for mer and fourteen votes from the free States, of whom seven were from New England alone ; while on a vote to exclude slavery from what is now Kansas, the vote was one hundred and thirty-four for to forty-two against. The scheme, as a whole, was, of course, a Southern triumph. It is idle to contend otherwise, as is now being done by the Nebraskaites ; it was 152 " Lincoln s Lost Speech " so shown by the votes and quite as emphati cally by the expressions of representative men. Mr. Lowndes of South Carolina was never known to commit a political mistake ; his was the great judgment of that section ; and he de clared that this measure would restore tran quillity to the country a result demanded by every consideration of discretion, of modera tion, of wisdom, and of virtue." When the measure came before President Monroe for his approval, he put to each member of his cabinet this question : " Has Congress the constitu tional power to prohibit slavery in a territory?" And John C. Calhoun and William H. Craw ford from the South, equally with John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Rush, and Smith Thompson from the North, alike answered, " Yes !" with out qualification or equivocation ; and this meas ure, of so great consequence to the South, was passed ; and Missouri was, by means of it, finally enabled to knock at the door of the Re public for an open passage to its brood of slaves. / And, in spite of this, Freedom s share is about to be taken by violence by the force of mis- representative votes, not called for by the popu lar will. What name can I, in common de cency, give to this wicked transaction ? [Sen sation.] But even then the contest was not over ; for when the Missouri constitution came before Congress for its approval, it forbade any free negro or mulatto from entering the State. In 153 Abraham Lincoln short, our Illinois "black laws" were hidden away in their constitution [Laughter] , and the controversy was thus revived. Then it was that Mr. Clay s talents shone out conspicuously, and the controversy that shook the Union to its foundation was finally settled to the satisfaction of the conservative parties on both sides of the line, though not to the extremists on either, and Missouri was admitted by the small majority of six in the lower House. How great a majority, do you think, would have been given had Kan sas also been secured for slavery ? [A voice : "A majority the other way."] "A majority the other \vay," is answered. Do you think it would have been safe for a Northern man to have confronted his constituents after having voted to consign both Missouri and Kansas to hopeless slavery ? And yet this man Douglas, who misrepresents his constituents and who has exerted his highest talents in that direction, will be carried in triumph through the State and hailed with honor while applauding that act. [Three groans for "Dug!"] And this shows whither we are tending. This thing of slavery is more powerful than its supporters even than the high priests that minister at its altar. It debauches even our greatest men. It gathers strength, like a rolling snow-ball, by its own infamy. Monstrous crimes are committed in its name by persons collectively which they would not dare to commit as individuals. Its aggressions and encroachments almost surpass 154 " Lincoln s Lost Speech " belief. In a despotism, one might not wonder to see slavery advance steadily and remorse lessly into new dominions ; but is it not won derful, is it not even alarming, to see its steady advance in a land dedicated to the proposition that " all men are created equal" ? [Sensa tion.] It yields nothing itself ; it keeps all it has, and gets all it can besides. It really came dan gerously near securing Illinois in 1824 ; it did get Missouri in 1821. The first proposition was to admit what is now Arkansas and Missouri as one slave State. But the territory was divided, and Arkansas came in, without serious ques tion, as a slave State ; and afterward Missouri, not as a sort of equality, free, but also as a slave State. Then we had Florida and Texas ; and now Kansas is about to be forced into the dismal procession. [Sensation.] And so it is wherever you look. We have not forgotten it is but six years since how dangerously near California came to being a slave State. Texas is a slave State, and four other slave States may be carved from its vast domain. And yet, in the year 1829, slavery was abolished throughout that vast region by a royal decree of the then sovereign of Mexico. Will you please tell me by what right slavery exists in Texas to-day ? By the same right as, and no higher or greater than, slavery is seeking dominion in Kansas : by political force peaceful, if that will suffice ; by the torch (as in Kansas) and the bludgeon 155 Abraham Lincoln (as in the Senate chamber), if required. And so history repeats itself ; and even as slavery has kept its course by craft, intimidation, and violence in the past, so it will persist, in my judgment, until met and dominated by the will of a people bent on its restriction. We have, this very afternoon, heard bitter denunciations of Brooks in Washington, and Titus, Stringfellow, Atchison, Jones, and Shan non in Kansas the battle-ground of slavery. I certainly am not going to advocate or shield them ; but they and their acts are but the nec essary outcome of the Nebraska law. We should reserve our highest censure for the au thors of the mischief, and not for the catspaws which they use. I believe it was Shakespeare who said, "Where the offense lies, there let the axe fall ;" and, in my opinion, this man Douglas and the Northern men in Congress who advocate " Nebraska" are more guilty than a thousand Joneses and Stringfellows, with all their murderous practices, can be. [Applause. ] We have made a good beginning here to-day. As our Methodist friends would say, " I feel it is good to be here." While extremists may find some fault with the moderation of our plat form, they should recollect that " the battle is not always to the strong, nor the race to the swift." In grave emergencies, moderation is generally safer than radicalism ; and as this struggle is likely to be long and earnest, we must not, by our action, repel any who are in 156 " Lincoln s Lost Speech " sympathy with us in the main, but rather win all that we can to our standard. We must not belittle nor overlook the facts of our condition that we are new and comparatively weak, while our enemies are entrenched and relatively strong. They have the administration and the political power ; and, right or wrong, at present they have the numbers. Our friends who urge an appeal to arms with so much force and elo quence, should recollect that the government is arrayed against us, and that the numbers are now arrayed against us as well ; or, to state it nearer to the truth, they are not yet expressly and affirmatively for us ; and we should repel friends rather than gain them by anything savoring of revolutionary methods. As it now stands, we must appeal to the sober sense and patriotism of the people. We will make con verts day by day ; we will grow strong by calm ness and moderation ; we will grow strong by the violence and injustice of our adversaries. And, unless truth be a mockery and justice a hollow lie. we will be in the majority after a while, and then the revolution which we will accomplish will be none the less radical from being the result of pacific measures. The bat tle of freedom is to be fought out on principle. Slavery is a violation of the eternal right. We have temporized with it from the necessities of our condition ; but as sure as God reigns and school children read, THAT BLACK FOUL LIE CAN NEVER BE CONSECRATED INTO GOD S HALLOWED 157 Abraham Lincoln TRUTH ! [Immense applause lasting some time.] One of our greatest difficulties is, that men who know that slavery is a detestable crime and ruinous to the nation, are compelled., by our peculiar condition and other circum stances, to advocate it concretely, though damn ing it in the raw. Henry Clay was a brilliant example of this tendency ; others of our purest statesmen are compelled to do so ; and thus slavery secures actual support from those who detest it at heart. Yet Henry Clay perfected and forced through the Compromise which secured to slavery a great State as well as a political advantage. Not that he hated slavery less, but that he loved the whole Union more. As long as slavery profited by his great Com promise, the hosts of pro-slavery could not suffi ciently cover him with praise ; but now that this Compromise stands in their way "... they never mention him, His name is never heard : Their lips are now forbid to speak That once familiar word." They have slaughtered one of his most cher ished measures, and his ghost would arise to rebuke them. [Great applause.] Now, let us harmonize, my friends, and ap peal to the moderation and patriotism of the people : to the sober second thought ; to the awakened public conscience. The repeal of the sacred Missouri Compromise has installed the weapons of violence : the bludgeon, the in- 153 "Lincoln s Lost Speech" cendiary torch, the death-dealing rifle, the bristling cannon the weapons of kingcraft, of the inquisition, of ignorance, of barbarism, of oppression. We see its fruits in the dying bed of the heroic Sumner ; in the ruins of the Free State" hotel ; in the smoking embers of the Herald of Freedom ; in the free-State Gov ernor of Kansas chained to a stake on freedom s soil like a horse-thief, for the crime of freedom. [Applause.] We see it in Christian statesmen, and Christian newspapers, and Christian pul pits, applauding the cowardly act of a low bully, WHO CRAWLED UPON HIS VICTIM BEHIND HIS BACK AND DEALT THE DEADLY BLOW. [Sen- sation and applause.] We note our political demoralization in the catch-words that are com ing into such common use ; on the one hand, " freedom-shriekers," and sometimes " free dom -screechers" [Laughter] ; and, on the other hand, "border ruffians," and that fully de served. And the significance of catch-words cannot pass unheeded, for they constitute a sign of the times. Everything in this world "jibes" in with everything else, and all the fruits of this Nebraska bill are like the poisoned source from which they come. I will not say that we may not sooner or later be compelled to meet force by force ; but the time has not yet come, and if we are true to ourselves, may never come. Do not mistake that the ballot is stronger than the bullet. Therefore let the legions of slavery use bullets ; but let us wait 159 Abraham Lincoln patiently till November, and fire ballots at them in return ; and by that peaceful policy, I believe we shall ultimately win. [Applause.] It was by that policy that here in Illinois the early fathers fought the good fight and gained the victory. In 1824 the free men of our State, led by Governor Coles (who was a native of Maryland and President Madison s private sec retary), determined that those beautiful groves should never reecho the dirge of one who has no title to himself. By their resolute determi nation , the winds that sweep across our broad prairies shall never cool the parched brow, nor shall the unfettered streams that bring joy and gladness to our free soil water the tired feet, of a slave ; but so long as those heavenly breezes and sparkling streams bless the land, or the groves and their fragrance or their memory re main, the humanity to which they minister SHALL BE FOREVER FREE ! [Great applause.] Palmer, Yates, Williams, Browning, and some more in this convention came from Kentucky to Illinois (instead of going to Missouri), not only to better their conditions, but also to get away from slavery. They have said so to me, and it is understood among us Kentuckians that we don t like it one bit. Now, can we, mindful of the blessings of liberty which the early men of Illinois left to us, refuse a like privilege to the free men who seek to plant Freedom s banner on our Western outposts? [" No ! No !"J Should we not stand by our 160 " Lincoln s Lost Speech " neighbors who seek to better their conditions in Kansas and Nebraska? ["Yes! Yes!"] Can we as Christian men, and strong and free ourselves, wield the sledge or hold the iron which is to manacle anew an already oppressed race? [" No ! No !"] " Woe unto them," it is written, "that decree unrighteous decrees and that write grievousness which they have prescribed." Can we afford to sin any more deeply against human liberty ? ["No! No !"] One great trouble in the matter is, that slavery is an insidious and crafty power, and gains equally by open violence of the brutal as well as by sly management of the peaceful. Even after the ordinance of 1787, the settlers in Indiana and Illinois (it was all one government then) tried to get Congress to allow slavery temporarily, and petitions to that end were sent from Kaskaskia, and General Harrison, the Governor, urged it from Vincennes, the cap ital. If that had succeeded, good-by to liberty here. But John kandolph of Virginia made a vigorous report against it ; and although they persevered so well as to get three favorable re ports for it, yet the United States Senate, with the aid of some slave States, finally squelched it for good. [Applause.] And that is why this hall is to-day a temple for free men instead of a negro livery stable. [Great applause and laughter.] Once let slavery get planted in a locality, by ever so weak or doubtful a title, and in ever so small numbers, and it is like the Can- 161 Abraham Lincoln ada thistle or Bermuda grass you can t root it out. You yourself may detest slavery ; but your neighbor has five or six slaves, and he is an excellent neighbor, or your son has married his daughter, and they beg you to help save their property, and you vote against your inter est and principles to accommodate a neighbor, hoping that your vote will be on the losing side. And others do the same ; and in those ways slavery gets a sure foothold. And when that is done the whole mighty Union the force of the nation is committed to its support. And that very process is working in Kansas to-day. And you must recollect that the slave property is worth a billion of dollars ($1,000,000,000) ; while free-State men must work for sentiment alone. Then there are " blue lodges" as they call them everywhere doing their secret and deadly work. It is a very strange thing, and not solvable by any moral law that I know of, that if a man loses his horse, the whole country will turn out to help hang the thief ; but if a man but a shade or two darker than I am is himself stolen, the same crowd will hang one who aids in re storing him to liberty. Such are the inconsis tencies of slavery, where a horse is more sacred than a man ; and the essence of squatter or popular sovereignty I don t care how you call it is that if one man chooses to make a slave of another, no third man shall be allowed to object. And if you can do this in free Kansas, 162 " Lincoln s Lost Speech " and it is allowed to stand, the next thing you will see is ship loads of negroes from Africa at the wharf at Charleston ; for one thing is as truly lawful as the other ; and these are the bastard notions we have got to stamp out, else they will stamp us out. [Sensation and ap plause.] Two years ago, at Springfield, Judge Douglas avowed that Illinois came into the Union as a slave State, and that slavery was weeded out by the operation of his great, patent, ever lasting principle of " popular sovereignty." [Laughter.] Well, now, that argument must be answered, for it has a little grain of truth at the bottom. I do not mean that it is true in essence, as he would have us believe. It could not be essentially true if the ordinance of 87 was valid. But, in point of fact, there were some degraded beings called slaves in Kaskas- kia and the other French settlements when our first State constitution was adopted ; that is a fact, and I don t deny it. Slaves were brought here as early as 1720, and were kept here in spite of the ordinance of 1787 against it. But slavery did not thrive here. On the contrary, under the influence of the ordinance, the num ber decreased fifty-one from 1810 to 1820 ; while under the influence of squatter sovereignty, right across the river in Missouri, they increased seven thousand two hundred and eleven in the same time ; and slavery finally faded out in Illinois, under the influence of the law of free- 163 Abraham Lincoln dom, while it grew stronger and stronger in Missouri, under the law or practice of " popular sovereignty." In point of fact there were but one hundred and seventeen slaves in Illinois one year after its admission, or one to every four hundred and seventy of its population ; or, to state it in another way, if Illinois was a slave State in 1820, so were New York and New Jer sey much greater slave States from having had greater numbers, slavery having been estab lished there in very early times. But there is this vital difference between all these States and the judge s Kansas experiment : that they sought to disestablish slavery which had been already established, while the judge seeks, so far as he can, to disestablish freedom, which had been established there by the Missouri Compromise. [Voices : " Good !"] The Union is undergoing a fearful strain ; but it is a stout old ship, and has weathered 1 many a hard blow, and "the stars in their courses," aye, an invisible power, greater than the puny efforts of men, will fight for us. But we ourselves must not decline the burden of re sponsibility, nor take counsel of unworthy pas sions. Whatever duty urges us to do or to omit, must be done or omitted ; and the reck lessness with which our adversaries break the laws, or counsel their violation, should afford no example for us. Therefore, let us revere the Declaration of Independence ; let us con tinue to obey the Constitution and the laws ; 164 " Lincoln s Lost Speech " let us keep step to the music of the Union. Let us draw a cordon, so to speak, around the slave States, and the hateful institution, like a reptile poisoning itself, will perish by its own infamy. [Applause.] But we cannot be free men if this is, by our national choice, to be a land of slavery. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves ; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it. [Loud applause.] Did you ever, my friends, seriously reflect upon the speed with which we are tending downward ? Within the memory of men now present the leading statesmen of Virginia could make genuine, red-hot abolitionist speeches in old Virginia ; and, as I have said, now even in " free Kansas" it is a crime to declare that it is "free Kansas." The very sentiments that I and others have just uttered would entitle us, and each of us, to the ignominy and seclusion of a dungeon ; and yet I suppose that, like Paul, we were " free born." But if this thing is allowed to continue, it will be but one step further to impress the same rule in Illinois. [Sensation.] The conclusion of all is, that we must restore the Missouri Compromise. We must highly re solve that Kansas must be free ! [Great ap plause.] We must reinstate the birthday prom ise of the Republic ; we must reaffirm the Dec laration of Independence ; we must make good in essence as well as in form Madison s avowal 165 Abraham Lincoln that "the word slave ought not to appear in the Constitution ;" and we must even go fur ther, and decree that only local law, and not that time-honored instrument, shall shelter a slave-holder. We must make this a land of liberty in fact, as it is in name. But in seeking to attain these results so indispensable if the liberty which is our pride and boast shall en dure we will be loyal to the Constitution and to the "flag of our Union," and no matter what our grievance even though Kansas shall come in as a slave State ; and no matter what theirs even if we shall restore the Compromise WE WILL SAY TO THE SOUTHERN DISUNIONISTS, WE WON T GO OUT OF THE UNION, AND YOU SHAN T ! ! ! [This was the climax ; the audi ence rose to its feet en masse, applauded, stamped, waved handkerchiefs, threw hats in the air, and ran riot for several minutes. The arch-enchanter who wrought this transforma tion looked, meanwhile, like the personification of political justice.] But let us, meanwhile, appeal to the sense and patriotism of the people, and not to their prejudices ; let us spread the floods of enthusi asm here aroused all over these vast prairies, so suggestive of freedom. Let us commence by electing the gallant soldier Governor (Col onel) Bissell who stood for the honor of our State alike on the plains and amidst the chapar ral of Mexico and on the floor of Congress, while he defied the Southern Hotspur ; and 1 66 " Lincoln s Lost Speech" that will have a greater moral effect than all the border ruffians can accomplish in all their raids on Kansas. There is both a power and a magic in popular opinion. To that let us now appeal ; and while, in all probability, no resort to force will be needed, our moderation and forbearance will stand us in good stead when, if ever, WE MUST MAKE AN APPEAL TO BATTLE AND TO THE GOD OF HOSTS ! ! [Immense applause and a rush for the orator.] 14 DAY USE RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED LOAN DEPT. This book is due on the last date stamped below, or on the date to which renewed. Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. CIR MAR 21 1985 JUK3 64 -8 AM GENERAL LIBRARY - U.C. BERKELEY 60007^21,1