ORIGAN KJ-STGRY 
 
 IN 
 LITER AT URF 
 
 L-M-BRIGGS 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 
 

American .Kjistorp in literature 
 
 Noted Speeches of 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN 
 
American ffiiatorp in literature 
 
 NOTED SPEECHES 
 
 OF 
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN 
 
 Including the 
 
 Lincoln- Douglas Debate 
 
 EDITED WITH BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES 
 
 BY 
 
 LILIAN MARIE BRIGGS 
 
 Assistant in the yew York Public Library 
 
 WITH PORTRAITS 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
 MOFFAT, YARD AND COMPANY 
 1911 
 

 Copyright, 1911, by 
 
 MOFFAT, YARD AND COMPANY 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
 THE QUINN A K>DEN CO. PRESS 
 HAHWAY, N. J. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAGI 
 
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH LINCOLN . . ix 
 COOPER INSTITUTE SPEECH . . . . i 
 LINCOLN S FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS . 35 
 LINCOLN S GETTYSBURG SPEECH . . -51 
 LINCOLN S SECOND INAUGURAL ADDRESS . 53 
 PROCLAMATION OF EMANCIPATION . .57 
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH DOUGLAS . .61 
 LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE : 
 
 Opening Speech 63 
 
 Lincoln s Reply 82 
 
 299183 
 
ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN ... . . Frontispiece 
 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS . . Facing page 62 
 
FOREWORD 
 
 THIS series, American History in Literature, 
 will include only the best-known American 
 speeches, those which commemorate the most 
 important events in the history of our country. 
 
 The biographical sketches have been included 
 for the convenience of the student and reader, 
 and for the schoolboys and girls, who are con 
 stantly seeking concise accounts of the. lives of our 
 great Americans. 
 
 This present volume, the first of the series, gives 
 to the student and reader Abraham Lincoln s most 
 noted speeches in compact form, making a chrono 
 logical anthology. 
 
 L. M. B. 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 
 
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 
 
 V^ v 
 
 IN a little log-cabin in Hardin County, Ken 
 tucky, pn the 1 2th. of February, 1809, was born 
 a future President of the United States, Abraham 
 Lincoln. 
 
 When Abraham was seven years old, his father, 
 Thomas Lincoln, moved with his family to In 
 diana. It was a cold, dreary winter for them 
 in the rude shed which Abraham, knowing well 
 how to handle an ax, had helped his father to 
 build. The following autumn found them in a 
 better cabin, but brought to Abraham the loss of 
 his mother, Nancy Hanks Lincoln, leaving his sis 
 ter Sarah, eleven years old, to care for the house 
 hold. But the next year the little home was much 
 changed; for a stepmother had come, a woman of 
 energy and thrift, who provided the children with 
 comforts before unknown to them. She became 
 very fond of Abraham and encouraged his incli 
 nation for reading and study. One year would 
 probably cover all the schooling he ever had, but 
 
 ix 
 
x ABRAHAM LINCOLN 
 
 he set to work with a will to educate himself, 
 sometimes walking miles to borrow a book. 
 
 In the spring of 1830 Thomas Lincoln sold his 
 farm in Indiana and moved to Illinois. Abraham, 
 though wishing to do something for himself, re 
 mained with his father about a year longer, to see 
 him comfortably settled in his new home. Then, 
 in April, he went on his second expedition to New 
 Orleans in a flatboat. On his return his employer 
 placed him in charge of a store at New Salem. 
 
 When he was twenty-three years old, he enlisted 
 in what was called the Black Hawk War, and was 
 chosen captain of his company. When the war 
 was at an end and he returned home, he was told 
 that the people wished to send him to the legisla 
 ture. He agreed to be a candidate, but was not 
 elected. All this time he did not give up the idea 
 of becoming a lawyer, and soon after the next 
 election, at which he received a large majority, he 
 commenced the study of law. 
 
 In 1837 he left New Salem and removed to 
 Springfield, which was ever after his home. He 
 was elected to the Illinois legislature four times in 
 succession and again in_j_8_6, and tho_following 
 to be a Representative in Con- 
 
 At the close of his two years in Congress, 
 Mr. Lincoln returned to Springfield and applied 
 himself to the practice of law. But very soon he 
 was again taking an active part in the politics of 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN xi 
 
 his State. It was at the State convention held in 
 Bloomington in 1856, at which time the Republi 
 can party of Illinois was finally organized, that 
 Mr. Lincoln made the wonderful address which 
 has become famous as his " lost speech." 
 
 j^ighteen fifty-eight was the year of the noted 
 Lincoln-Douglas t)ebate that brought Mr. Lincoln 
 conspicuously before the whole country. Two 
 years later, when visiting New York, he was in 
 vited by a party of Republicans to deliver a 
 speech at Cooper Union. This speech helped to 
 increase his popularity. This same year, 1860, 
 Mr. Lincoln was elected to be President of the 
 United States, and on the 4th of March, 1861, 
 delivered his First Inaugural Address in the pres 
 ence of thousands of people. The Emancipation 
 Proclamation, which gave the slaves their free 
 dom, was issued to take effect, on the ist of Janu 
 ary, 1863; and in this act Mr. Lincoln made his 
 name great. It was in this same year that he 
 delivered the famous Gettysburg Address. 
 
 Mr. Lincoln was elected to the Presidency for 
 the second term, but lived only a few weeks after 
 ward. He was shot in a theater in Washington 
 on Friday evening, the I4th of April, 1865. 
 
" He grew according to the need, 
 and as the problem grew, 
 so did his comprehension of it." 
 RALPH WALDO EMERSON. 
 
COOPER INSTITUTE SPEECH 
 
 DELIVERED AT COOPER INSTITUTE, NEW YORK, 
 FEBRUARY 27, i860 
 
 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 in 
 ferences and observations following that presenta 
 tion. In his speech last autumn at Columbus, 
 Ohio, as reported in the New York Times, Sena 
 tor Douglas said: " Our fathers, when they framed 
 the government under which we live, understood 
 this question just as well, and even better, than we 
 do now." 
 
 I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text 
 for this discourse. I so adopt it because it fur 
 nishes a precise and an agreed starting-point for 
 a discussion between Republicans and that wing 
 of the Democracy headed by Senator Douglas. It 
 simply leaves the inquiry: What was the under- 
 
SPEECHES OF 
 
 stirtding those fathers^ hid of the question men 
 tioned? 
 
 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 un 
 der which the present government first went into 
 operation, and twelve subsequently framed amend 
 ments, 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. Their names, be 
 ing familiar to nearly all, and accessible to quite 
 all, need not now be repeated. 
 
 I take these " thirty-nine," for the present, as 
 being " our fathers who framed the government 
 under which we live." What is the question 
 which, according to the text, those fathers under 
 stood " 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 con 
 trol as to slavery in our Federal Territories? 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 3 
 
 Upon this, Senator Douglas holds the affirma 
 tive, and Republicans the negative. This af 
 firmation and denial form an issue; and this issue 
 this question is precisely what the text de 
 clares 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 ex 
 pressed that better understanding. In 1784, three 
 years before the Constitution, the United States 
 then owning the Northwestern Territory and no 
 other, the Congress of the Confederation had be 
 fore them the question 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 
 Williamson voted for the prohibition, thus show 
 ing that, in their understanding, no line dividing 
 local from Federal authority, nor anything else, 
 properly forbade the Federal Government to con 
 trol 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 Ter 
 ritory owned by the United States, the same ques- 
 
4 TOOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 tion of prohibiting slavery in the Territory again 
 came before the Congress of the Confederation; 
 and two more of the " thirty-nine " who after 
 ward signed the Constitution were in that Con 
 gress, and voted on the question. They were Wil 
 liam Blount and William Few; and they both 
 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. This time the pro 
 hibition became a law, being part of what is now 
 well known as the ordinance of 87. 
 
 The question of Federal control of slavery in 
 the Territories seems not to have been directly 
 before the convention which framed the original 
 Constitution; and hence it is not 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 with- 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 5 
 
 out ayes and nays, which is equivalent to a unani 
 mous passage. In this Congress there were six 
 teen of the thirty-nine fathers who framed the 
 original Constitution. They were John Langdon, 
 Nicholas Gilman, William S. Johnson, Roger 
 Sherman, Robert Morris, Thomas Fitzsimmons, 
 William Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, 
 William Paterson, George Clymer, Richard Bas- 
 sett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll, 
 and James Madison. 
 
 This shows that, in their understanding, no line 
 dividing local from Federal authority, nor any 
 thing in the Constitution, properly forbade Con 
 gress to prohibit slavery in the Federal territory; 
 else both their fidelity to correct principle, and their 
 oath to support the Constitution, would have con 
 strained 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 divid 
 ing 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 origi 
 nal Constitution, North Carolina ceded to the 
 Federal Government the country now constitut 
 ing the State of Tennessee ; and a few years later 
 
6 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 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 Government should not 
 prohibit slavery in the ceded country. Besides 
 this, slavery was then actually in the ceded coun 
 try. Under these circumstances, Congress, on 
 taking charge of these countries, did not abso 
 lutely prohibit slavery within them. But they did 
 interfere with it take control of it even there, 
 to a certain extent. In 1798 Congress organized 
 the Territory of Mississippi. In the act of 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 Con 
 gress 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 understanding, any line dividing local from 
 Federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, 
 properly forbade the Federal Government to con 
 trol as to slavery in Federal territory. 
 
 In 1803 the Federal Government purchased the 
 Louisiana country. Our former territorial acqui 
 sitions came from certain of our own States; but 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 7 
 
 this Louisiana country was acquired from a for 
 eign nation. In 1804 Congress gave a territorial 
 organization to that part of it which now consti 
 tutes the State of Louisiana. New Orleans, lying 
 within that part, was an old and comparatively 
 large city. There were other considerable towns 
 and settlements, and slavery was extensively and 
 thoroughly intermingled with the people. Con 
 gress did not, in the Territorial Act, prohibit slav 
 ery; 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 substance of 
 the provision therein made in relation to slaves 
 was: 
 
 i st. 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 set 
 tler; the penalty in all the cases being a fine upon 
 the violator of the law, and freedom to the slave. 
 
 This act aho 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 
 
8 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 recording their opposition to it if, in their under 
 standing, it violated either the line properly divid 
 ing local from Federal authority, or any provision 
 of the Constitution. 
 
 In 1819-20 came and passed the Missouri ques 
 tion. Many votes were taken, by yeas and 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. Pinckney as steadily 
 voted against slavery prohibition and against all 
 compromises. By this, Mr. King showed that, in 
 his understanding, no line dividing local from Fed 
 eral authority, nor anything in the Constitution, 
 was violated by Congress prohibiting slavery in 
 Federal territory; while Mr. Pinckney, by his 
 votes, showed that, in his understanding, there 
 was some sufficient reason for opposing such pro 
 hibition 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 Sher- 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN g 
 
 man, William Few, Rufus King, and George Read 
 each twice, and Abraham Baldwin three times. 
 The true number of those of the " thirty-nine " 
 whom I have shown to have acted upon the ques 
 tion which, by the text, they understood better 
 than we, is twenty-three, leaving sixteen not shown 
 to have acted upon it in any way. 
 
 Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our 
 thirty-nine fathers " who framed the government 
 under which we live," who have, upon their offi 
 cial 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 ma 
 jority of the whole " thirty-nine " so acting upon 
 it as to make them guilty of gross political impro 
 priety and willful perjury if, in their understand 
 ing, any proper division between local and Fed 
 eral authority, or anything in the Constitution 
 they had made themselves, and sworn to support, 
 forbade the Federal Government to control as to 
 slavery in the Federal Territories. Thus the 
 twenty-one acted; and, as actions speak louder 
 than words, so actions under such responsibility 
 speak still louder. 
 
 Two of the twenty-three voted against congres 
 sional prohibition of slavery in the Federal Ter 
 ritories, in the instances in which they acted upon 
 the question. But for what reasons they so voted 
 
io NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 is not known. They may have done so because 
 they thought a proper division of local from Fed 
 eral 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 appeared to them to be suffi 
 cient grounds of expediency. No one who has 
 sworn to support the Constitution can conscien 
 tiously vote for what he understands to be an un 
 constitutional measure, however expedient he may 
 think it; but one may and ought to vote against 
 a measure 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 any 
 thing 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 Terri 
 tories. But there is much reason to believe that 
 their understanding upon that question would not 
 have appeared different from that of their twenty- 
 three compeers, had it been manifested at all. 
 
 For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN n 
 
 I have purposely omitted whatever understanding 
 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 un 
 derstanding 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 foreign slave-trade, and the morality 
 and policy of slavery generally, it would appear 
 to us that on the direct question of Federal con 
 trol of slavery in Federal Territories, the six 
 teen, if they had acted at all, would probably 
 have acted just as the twenty-three did. Among 
 that sixteen were several of the most noted anti- 
 slavery men of those times, as Dr. Franklin, 
 Alexander Hamilton, and Gouverneur Morris, 
 while there was not one now known to have been 
 otherwise, unless it may be John Rutledge, of 
 South Carolina. 
 
 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 Government to 
 control slavery in the Federal Territories; while 
 all the rest had probably the same understanding. 
 
12 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 Such, unquestionably, was the understanding of 
 our fathers who framed the original Constitution; 
 and the text affirms that they understood the ques 
 tion " better than we." 
 
 But, so far, I have been considering the under 
 standing of the question manifested by the framers 
 of the original Constitution. In and by the origi 
 nal instrument, a mode was provided for amend 
 ing it; and, as I have already stated, the present 
 frame of " the government under which we live n 
 consists of that original, and twelve amendatory 
 articles framed and adopted since. Those who 
 now insist that Federal control of slavery in Fed 
 eral Territories violates the Constitution, point us 
 to the provisions which they suppose it thus vio 
 lates; 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 Doug 
 las 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 respect 
 ively, or to the people." 
 
 Now, it so happens that these amendments were 
 framed by the first Congress which sat under the 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 13 
 
 Constitution the identical Congress which passed 
 the act, already mentioned, enforcing the prohibi 
 tion of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. 
 Not only was it the same Congress, but they were 
 the identical, same individual men who, at the 
 same session, and at the same time within the ses 
 sion, had under consideration, and in progress to 
 ward maturity, these constitutional amendments, 
 and this act prohibiting slavery in all the terri 
 tory the nation then owned. The constitutional 
 amendments were introduced before, and passed 
 after, the act enforcing the ordinance of 87; so 
 that, during the whole pendency of the act to en 
 force the ordinance, the constitutional amendments 
 were also pending. 
 
 The seventy-six members of that Congress, in 
 cluding sixteen of the framers of the original Con 
 stitution, as before stated, were pre-eminently our 
 fathers who framed that part of " the government 
 under which we live " which is now claimed as for 
 bidding the Federal Government to control slav 
 ery in the Federal Territories. 
 
 Is it not a little presumptuous in anyone at this 
 day to affirm that the two things which that Con 
 gress deliberately framed and carried to maturity 
 at the same time, are absolutely inconsistent with 
 each other? And does not such affirmation be 
 come impudently absurd when coupled with the 
 other affirmation from the same mouth, that those 
 
14 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 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 inconsistent? 
 
 It is surely safe to assume that the thirty-nine 
 framers of the original Constitution, and the sev 
 enty-six members of the Congress which framed 
 the amendments thereto, taken together, do cer 
 tainly include those who may be fairly called u our 
 fathers who framed the government under which 
 we live." And so assuming, I defy any man to 
 show that any one of them ever, in his whole life, 
 declared that, in his understanding, any proper 
 division of local from Federal authority, or any 
 part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Gov 
 ernment to control as to slavery in the Federal 
 Territories. I go a step further. I defy anyone 
 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 begin 
 ning of the last half of the present century), de 
 clare that, in his understanding, any proper divi 
 sion of local from Federal authority, or any part 
 of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Govern 
 ment to control as to slavery in the Federal Ter 
 ritories. 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 liv 
 ing men within the century in which it was framed, 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 15 
 
 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 be 
 ing 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 w r e would 
 supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in 
 any case, we should do so upon evidence so con 
 clusive, and argument so clear, that even their 
 great authority, fairly considered and weighed, 
 cannot stand; and most surely not in a case whereof 
 we ourselves declare they understood the question 
 better than we. 
 
 If any man at this day sincerely believes that 
 a proper division of local from Federal authority, 
 or any part of the Constitution, forbids the Fed 
 eral Government to control as to slavery in the 
 Federal Territories, he is right to say so, and to 
 enforce his position by all truthful evidence 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 un 
 der which we live " were of the same opinion 
 thus substituting falsehood and deception for 
 truthful evidence and fair argument. If any man 
 
1 6 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 at this day sincerely 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 divi 
 sion of local from Federal authority, or some part 
 of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Govern 
 ment to control as to slavery in the Federal Ter 
 ritories, he is right to say so. But he should, at 
 the same time, brave the responsibility of declar 
 ing that, in his opinion, he understands their prin 
 ciples better than they did themselves; and espe 
 cially should he not shirk that responsibility by 
 asserting that they " understood the question just 
 as well, and even better, than we do now." 
 
 But enough ! Let all who believe that " our fa 
 thers 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 slav 
 ery. As those fathers marked it, so let it be again 
 marked, as an evil not to be extended, but to be 
 tolerated and protected only because of and so far 
 as its actual presence among us makes that tolera 
 tion and protection a necessity. Let all the guar 
 antees those fathers gave it be not grudgingly, but 
 fully and fairly, maintained. For this Republicans 
 contend, and with this, so far as I know or believe, 
 they will be content. 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 17 
 
 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 anc| justice 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 bet 
 ter 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 con 
 demnation of " Black Republicanism " as the first 
 thing to be attended to. Indeed, such condemna 
 tion of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite 
 license, so to speak among you to be admitted 
 or permitted to speak at all. Now can you or not 
 be prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether 
 this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? 
 Bring forward your charges and specifications, and 
 then be patient long enough to hear us deny or 
 justify. 
 
 You say we are sectional. We deny it. That 
 makes an issue; and the burden of proof is upon 
 you. You produce your proof; and what is it? 
 Why, that our party has no existence in your sec 
 tion gets no votes in your section. The fact is 
 substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If 
 
1 8 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 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 begin 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 re 
 pel you by any wrong principle or practice, the fault 
 is ours; but this brings you to where you ought to 
 have started to a discussion of the right or 
 wrong of our principle. If 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 op 
 posed and denounced as such. Meet us, then, on 
 the question of whether our principle, put in prac 
 tice, 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 I 
 Then you really believe that the principle which 
 " our fathers who framed the government under 
 which we live " thought so clearly right as to 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 19 
 
 adopt it, and indorse it again and again, upon their 
 official oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as to de 
 mand your condemnation without a moment s 
 
 i 
 
 consideration. 
 
 Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the 
 j9m njf agamst sectional parties given by Wash 
 ington in his Farewell AddreSs!. feeSTthan eight 
 years before Washington gave that warning, he 
 had, as President of the United States, approved 
 and signed an act of Congress enforcing the pro 
 hibition 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 consid 
 ered 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 
 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 Washington 
 himself speak, would he cast the blame of that sec 
 tionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon 
 you, who repudiate it? W T e respect that warning 
 of Washington, and we commend it to you, to 
 gether with his example pointing to the right ap 
 plication of it. 
 
 But you say you are conservative eminently 
 
20 ^OT ED SPEECHES OF 
 
 conservative- while we are revolutionary, dt- 
 structive, or something of the sort. What is con 
 servatism? Is it not adherence to the old and 
 tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, 
 contend for, the identical old policy on thepoint 
 in controversy which was adopted by " our fa*- 
 thers who framed the government under which 
 we live " ; while you with one accord reject, and 
 scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist 
 upon substituting something new. True, you dis 
 agree among yourselves as to what that substitute 
 shall be. You are divided on new propositions 
 nd plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and 
 renouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some 
 of you are for reviving the foreign slave-trade; 
 some for a congressional slave code for the Ter 
 ritories; some for Congress forbidding the Terri 
 tories to prohibit slavery within their limits; some 
 for maintaining slavery in the Territories through 
 the judiciary; some for the " gur-reat pur-rinciple " 
 that " if one man would enslave another, no 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 fa 
 thers who framed the government under which we 
 live." Not one of all your various plans can show 
 a precedent or an advocate in the century within 
 which our government originated. Consider, then, 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 21 
 
 whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, 
 and your charge of destructiveness against us, are 
 based on the most clear and stable foundation. 
 
 Again, you say we have made the slaver) ques 
 tion more prominent than it formerly was. We 
 deny it. We admit that it is more prominent, but 
 we deny that we made it so. It was noc 
 you, who discarded the old policy of the fa. 
 We resisted, and still resist, your innovation; ah 
 thence comes the greater prominence of the ques 
 tion. Would you have that question reduced to 
 its former proportions? Go back to that c i pol 
 icy. What has been will be again, under the same 
 conditions. If you would have the peace of the 
 old times, readopt 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 enter 
 prise. If any member of our party is guilty in 
 that matter you know it, or you do not know it. 
 If you do know it, you are inexcusable for not 
 designating the man and proving the fact. If 
 you do not know it, you are inexcusable for as 
 serting it, and especially for persisting in the 
 assertion after you have tried and failed to make 
 the proof. You need not be told that persisting 
 
22 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 in a charge which one does not know to be true, 
 is simply malicious slander. 
 
 Some of you admit that no Republican design 
 edly aided or encouraged the Harper s Ferry af 
 fair, but still insist that our doctrines and decla 
 rations necessarily lead to such results. We do 
 -.believe it. We know we hold no doctrine, and 
 no declaration, which were not held to and 
 our fathers who framed the govern 
 ment under which we live." You never dealt 
 V 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 elections. 
 The elections came, and your expectations were 
 not quite fulfilled. Every Republican man knew 
 that, as to himself at least, your charge was a 
 slander, and he was not much inclined by it to 
 cast his vote in your favor. Republican doctrines 
 and declarations are accompanied with a continual 
 protest against any interference whatever with 
 your slaves, or with 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 be 
 lief 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 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 23 
 
 Republican party. I believe they would not, in 
 fact, generally know it but for your misrepresenta 
 tions of us in their hearing. In your political con 
 tests among yourselves, each faction charges the 
 other with sympathy with Black Republicanism; 
 and then, to give point to the charge, defines Black 
 Republicanism to simply be insurrection, blood, 
 and thunder among the slaves. 
 
 ) Slave insurrections are no more common now 
 than they were before the Republican party was 
 organized. What induced the Southampton in 
 surrection, twenty-eight years ago, in which at 
 least three times as many lives were lost as at Har 
 per s Ferry? You can scarcely stretch your very 
 elastic fancy to the conclusion that Southampton 
 was " got up by Black Republicanism." 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 explosive 
 materials are everywhere in parcels; but there 
 neither are, nor can be supplied, the indispensable 
 connecting trains. 
 
 Much is said by Southern people about the af 
 fection of slaves for their masters and mistresses; 
 and a part of it, at least, is true. A plot for an 
 uprising could scarcely be devised and communU 
 
24 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 cated to twenty individuals before some one of 
 them, to save the life of a favorite master or mis 
 tress, would divulge it. This is the rule; and the 
 slave revolution in Hayti was not an exception 
 to it, but a case occurring under peculiar circum 
 stances. The gunpowder plot of British history, 
 though not connected with slaves, was more in 
 point. In that case only about twenty were admit 
 ted 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 gen 
 eral insurrections of slaves, as I think, can hap 
 pen in this country for a long time. Whoever 
 much fears, or much hopes, for such an event, will 
 be alike disappointed. 
 
 In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many 
 years ago, " It is still in our power to direct the 
 process of emancipation and deportation peace 
 ably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will 
 wear off insensibly ; and their places be, pan passu, 
 filled up by free white laborers. If, on the con 
 trary, it is left to force itself on, human nature 
 must shudder at the prospect held up." 
 
 Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, 
 that the power of emancipation is in the Federal 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 25 
 
 Government. He spoke of Virginia; and, as to 
 the power of emantipation, I speak of the slave- 
 holding States only. The Federal Government, 
 however, as we insist, has the power of restraining 
 the extension of the institution the power to in 
 sure 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 af 
 fair, in its philosophy, corresponds with the many 
 attempts, related in history, at the assassination of 
 kings and emperors. An enthusiast broods over 
 the oppression of a people till he fancies himself 
 commissioned by Heaven to liberate them. He 
 ventures the attempt, which ends in little else than 
 his own execution. Orsini s attempt on Louis Na 
 poleon and John Brown s attempt at Harper s 
 Ferry were, in their philosophy, precisely the same. 
 The eagerness to cast blame on old England in the 
 one case and on New England in the other, does 
 not disprove the sameness of the two things. 
 
 And how much would it avail you, if you could, 
 by the use of John Brown, Helper s Book, and the 
 like, breakup the Republican organization? Hu 
 man action can be modified to some extent, but 
 
26 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 human nature cannot be changed. There is a 
 judgment and a feeling against slavery in this na 
 tion which cast at least a million and a half of 
 votes. You cannot destroy that judgment and 
 feeling that sentiment by breaking up the po 
 litical organization which rallies around it. You 
 can scarcely scatter and disperse an army which 
 has been formed into order in the face of your 
 heaviest fire; but if you could, how much would 
 you gain by forcing the sentiment which created 
 it out of the peaceful channel of the ballot-box into 
 some other channel? What would that other 
 channel probably be? Would the number of John 
 Browns be lessened or enlarged by the operation? 
 
 But you will break up the Union rather than 
 submit to a denial of your constitutional rights. 
 
 That has a somewhat reckless sound; but it 
 would be palliated, if not fully justified, were we 
 proposing, by the mere force of numbers, to de 
 prive you of some right plainly written down in 
 the Constitution. But we are proposing no such 
 thing. 
 
 When you make these declarations, you have 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 specifically written 
 in the Constitution. That instrument is literally 
 silent about any such right. We, on the contrary, 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 27 
 
 deny that such a right has any existence in the Con 
 stitution, 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 decided 
 the disputed constitutional question in your favor. 
 Not quite so. But waiving the lawyer s distinction 
 between dictum and decision, the court has decided 
 the question for you in a sort of way. The court 
 has substantially 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 that its avowed supporters disagree with one 
 another about its meaning, and that it was mainly 
 based upon a mistaken statement of fact the 
 statement in the opinion that " the right of prop 
 erty 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 " distinctly 
 and expressly affirmed " in it. Bear in mind, the 
 
28 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that 
 such right is impliedly affirmed in the Con 
 stitution; but they pledge their veracity that it is 
 " distinctly and expressly " affirmed there " dis 
 tinctly," that is, not mingled with anything else 
 " expressly," that is, in words meaning just that, 
 without the aid of any inference, and susceptible 
 of no other meaning. 
 
 If they had only pledged their judicial opinion 
 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 connection with language 
 alluding to the things slave, or slavery; and that 
 wherever in that instrument the slave is alluded 
 to, he is called a " person"; and 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 contempora 
 neous history, that this mode of alluding to slaves 
 and slavery, instead of speaking of them, was 
 employed on purpose to exclude from the Consti 
 tution the idea that there could be property in 
 man. 
 
 To show all this is easy and certain. 
 
 When this obvious mistake of the judges shall 
 be brought to their notice, is it not reasonable to 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 29 
 
 expect that they will withdraw the mistaken state 
 ment, and reconsider the conclusion based upon it? 
 
 And then it is to be remembered that u our fa 
 thers who framed the government under which 
 we live " the men who made the Constitution 
 decided this same constitutional question in our 
 favor long ago: decided it without division among 
 themselves when making the decision; without di 
 vision 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 state 
 ment of facts. 
 
 Under all these circumstances, do you really feel 
 yourselves justified to break up this government 
 unless such a court decision as yours is shall be 
 at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule 
 of political action? But you will not abide the 
 election of a Republican president! In that sup 
 posed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; 
 and then, you say, the great crime of having de 
 stroyed it will be upon us ! That is cool. A high 
 wayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters 
 through his teeth, " Stand and deliver, or I shall 
 kill you, and then you will be a murderer! " 
 
 To be sure, what the robber demanded of me 
 my money was my own ; and I had a clear right 
 to keep it; but it was no more my own than my 
 vote is my own; and the threat of death to me, 
 to extort my money, and the threat of destruction 
 
30 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be dis 
 tinguished in principle. 
 
 A few words now to Republicans. It is exceed 
 ingly desirable that all parts of this great Con 
 federacy shall be at peace and in harmony one 
 with another. Let us Republicans do our part to 
 have it so. Even though much provoked, let us 
 do nothing through passion and ill-temper. Even 
 though the Southern people will not so much as 
 listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, 
 and yield to them if, in our deliberate view of our 
 duty, we possibly can. Judging by all they say and 
 do, and by the subject and nature of their contro 
 versy with us, let us determine, if we can, what 
 will satisfy them. 
 
 Will they be satisfied if the Territories be un 
 conditionally surrendered to them? We know 
 they will not. In all their present complaints 
 against us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. 
 Invasions and insurrections are the rage now. 
 
 2i*% . . . 
 
 Will it satisfy them if, in the future, we have noth 
 ing to do with invasions and insurrections? We 
 know it will not. We so know, because we know 
 we never had anything to do with invasions and 
 insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does 
 not exempt us from the charge and the denun 
 ciation. 
 
 The question recurs, What will satisfy them? 
 Simply this: we must not only let them alone, but 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 31 
 
 we must somehow convince them that we do let 
 them alone. This, we know by experience, 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. Si 
 lence will not be tolerated we must place our 
 selves 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 arrest and return their fugi 
 tive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull 
 down our free-State constitutions. The whole at 
 mosphere must be disinfected from all taint of 
 opposition to slavery, before they will cease to 
 believe that all their troubles proceed from us. 
 
 I am quite aware they do not state their case 
 precisely in this way. Most of them would prob 
 ably say to us, "Let us alone; do nothing to us, 
 
32 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 and say what you please about slavery." But we 
 do let them alone, have never disturbed them, 
 so that, after all, it is what we say which dissatis 
 fies them. They will continue to accuse us of do-, 
 ing, until we cease saying. 
 
 I am also aware they have not as yet in terms 
 demanded the overthrow of our free-State consti 
 tutions. 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 demanded, and nothing 
 be left to resist the demand. It is nothing to the 
 contrary that they do not demand the whole of this 
 just now. Demanding what they do, and for the 
 reason they do, they can voluntarily stop nowhere 
 short of this consummation. Holding, as they do, 
 that slavery is morally right and socially elevating, 
 they cannot cease to demand a full national recog 
 nition 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 consti 
 tutions against it are themselves wrong, and should 
 be silenced and swept away. If it is right, we can 
 not 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 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 33 
 
 ask they could as readily grant, if they thought it 
 wrong. Their thinking it right and our thinking 
 it wrong is the precise fact upon which depends 
 the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they 
 do, they are not to blame for desiring its full rec 
 ognition 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 responsi 
 bilities, 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 thejnecessity arising from its actual presence in 
 the nation; but can we, while our votes will pre 
 vent it, allow it to spread into the national Terri 
 tories, and to overrun us here in these free States? 
 If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand 
 by our duty fearlessly and effectively. Let us be 
 diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances 
 wherewith we are so industriously plied and bela 
 bored contrivances such as groping for some 
 middle ground between the right and the wrong: 
 vain as the search for a man who should be neither 
 a living man nor a dead man; such as a policy of 
 " don t care" on a question about which all true 
 men do care; such as Union appeals beseeching 
 true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing 
 the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but 
 the righteous, to repentance; such as invocations 
 
34 NOTED SPEECHES 
 
 to Washington, imploring men to unsay what 
 Washington said and undo what Washington did. 
 Neither let us be slandered from our duty by 
 false accusations against us, nor frightened from 
 it by menaces of destruction to the government, 
 nor of dungeons to ourselves. Let us have faith 
 that right makes might, and in that faith let us 
 to the end dare to do our duty as we understand it. 
 
LINCOLN S FIRST INAUGURAL 
 ADDRESS 
 
 MARCH 4, l86l 
 
 FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES: 
 In compliance with a custom as old as the gov 
 ernment itself, I appear before you to address you 
 briefly, and to take, in your presence, the oath pre 
 scribed by the Constitution of the United States 
 to be taken by the President before he enters on 
 the execution of his office. 
 
 I do not consider it necessary, at present, for 
 me to discuss those matters of administration about 
 which there is no special anxiety or excitement. 
 Apprehension seems to exist among the people of 
 the Southern States, that, by the accession of a Re 
 publican administration, their property and their 
 peace and personal security are to be endangered. 
 There has never been any reasonable cause for such 
 apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence 
 to the contrary has all the while existed and been 
 open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all 
 the published speeches of him who now addresses 
 you. I do but quote from one of those speeches, 
 
 35 
 
36 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 when I declare that " I have no purpose, directly 
 or indirectly, 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 incli 
 nation to do so. Those who nominated and elected 
 me did so with the full knowledge that I had made 
 this, and made many similar declarations, and had 
 never recanted them. And, more than this, they 
 placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and 
 as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and 
 emphatic resolution which I now read: 
 
 " Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of 
 the rights of the States, and especially the right of 
 each State to order and control its own domestic 
 institutions according to its own judgment exclu 
 sively, is essential to that balance of power on 
 which the perfection and endurance of our political 
 fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless inva 
 sion 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 sec 
 tion are to be in anywise endangered by the now 
 incoming administration. 
 
 I add, too, that all the protection which, consis 
 tently with the Constitution and the law, can be 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 37 
 
 given, will be cheerfully given to all the States 
 when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause, as 
 cheerfully to one section as to another. 
 
 There is much controversy about the delivering 
 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: 
 
 " No person held to service or labor in one 
 State under the laws thereof, escaping into another, 
 shall, in consequence of any law or regulation 
 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 reclaiming 
 of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention 
 of the law-giver is the law. 
 
 All members of Congress swear their support 
 to the whole Constitution to this provision as 
 well as 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 
 
3 8 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it 
 can be of but little consequence to him or to others 
 by which authority it is done; and should anyone, 
 in any case, be content that this oath shall go un- 
 kept 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 civilized 
 and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, 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 citizens of each State shall be entitled to all 
 the privileges and immunities 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 particular 
 acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, 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 of them, trusting to find im 
 punity in having them held to be unconstitutional. 
 
 It is seventy-two years since the first inaugura 
 tion of a President under our National Constitu 
 tion. During that period, fifteen different and 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 39 
 
 very distinguished citizens have in succession ad 
 ministered the executive branch of the Govern 
 ment. They have conducted it through many 
 perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with 
 all this scope for precedent, I now enter upon the 
 same task, for the brief constitutional term of 
 four years, under great and peculiar difficulties. 
 
 A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore 
 only menaced, is now formidably attempted. I 
 hold that in the contemplation of universal law 
 and of the Constitution, the union of these States 
 is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not ex 
 pressed, in the fundamental law of all national 
 governments. It is safe to assert that no govern 
 ment proper ever had a provision in its organic 
 law for its own termination. Continue to execute 
 all the express provisions of our National Con 
 stitution, and the Union will endure forever, it 
 being impossible to destroy it, except by some ac 
 tion not provided for in the instrument itself. 
 
 Again, if the United States be not a govern 
 ment proper, but an association of States in the 
 nature of a contract merely, can it, as a contract, 
 be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties 
 who made it? One party to a contract may vio 
 late it break it, so to speak; but does it not 
 require all to lawfully rescind it? Descending 
 from these general principles, we find the propo 
 sition that in legal contemplation the Union is per- 
 
40 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 petual, 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 Associa 
 tion in 1774. It was matured and continued in 
 the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was 
 further matured, and the faith of all the then thir 
 teen States expressly plighted and engaged that it 
 should be perpetual, by the Articles of the Con 
 federation, in 1778; and finally, in 1787, one of 
 the declared objects for ordaining and establishing 
 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 possible, 
 the Union is less perfect than before, the Consti 
 tution 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 violence within 
 any State or States against the authority of the 
 United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, 
 according to circumstances. 
 
 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 shall be faithfully executed 
 in all the States. Doing this, which I deem to be 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 41 
 
 only a simple duty on my part, I shall perfectly 
 perform it, so far as is practicable, unless my right 
 ful masters, the American people, shall withhold 
 the requisition, or in some authoritative 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 need be no bloodshed or 
 violence, and there shall be none unless it is forced 
 upon the national authority. 
 
 The power confided to me will be used to hold, 
 occupy, and possess the property and places be 
 longing to the Government, and collect the duties 
 and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary 
 for these objects there will be no invasion, no using 
 of force against or among the people anywhere. 
 
 Where hostility to the United States shall be 
 so great and so universal as to prevent competent 
 resident citizens from holding Federal offices, there 
 will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers 
 among the people that object. While strict legal 
 right may exist of the Government to enforce the 
 exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would 
 be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable withal, 
 that I deem it best 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. 
 
42 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 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, un 
 less current events and experience shall show a 
 modification or change to be proper; and in every 
 case and exigency my best discretion will be exer 
 cised according to the circumstances actually exist 
 ing, and with a view and hope of a peaceful solu 
 tion of the national troubles, and the restoration 
 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 ad 
 dress 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 well to ascertain why we do it? 
 Will you hazard so desperate a step, while any 
 portion of the ills you fly from have no real ex 
 istence? 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 mis 
 take? 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 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 43 
 
 Constitution, has been denied? I think not. Hap 
 pily 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 Constitution has 
 ever been denied. If, by the mere force of num 
 bers, a majority should deprive a minority of any 
 clearly-written constitutional right, it might, in a 
 moral point of view, justify revolution; it certainly 
 would if such right were a vital one. But such is 
 not our case. 
 
 All the vital rights of minorities and of individu 
 als 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 practicable ad 
 ministration. No foresight can anticipate, nor 
 any document of reasonable length contain, ex 
 press provisions for all possible questions. Shall 
 fugitives from labor be surrendered by National 
 or by State authorities? The Constitution does 
 not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery 
 in the Territories? The Constitution does not ex 
 pressly 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 
 
44 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 must, or the Government must cease. There is no 
 alternative for continuing the Government but ac 
 quiescence on the one side or the other. If a 
 minority in such a case will secede rather than 
 acquiesce, they make a precedent which, in turn, 
 will ruin and divide them, for a minority of their 
 own will secede from them whenever a majority 
 refuses to be controlled by such a minority. For 
 instance, why may not any portion of a new Con 
 federacy, a year or two hence, arbitrarily secede 
 again, precisely as portions of the present Union 
 now claim to secede from it? All who cherish dis 
 union 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 restraint by constitutional 
 check and limitation, and always changing easily 
 with deliberate changes of popular opinions and 
 sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free 
 people. Whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, 
 fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impos 
 sible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent ar 
 rangement, is wholly inadmissible. So that, re 
 jecting the majority principle, anarchy or despo 
 tism, in some form, is all that is left. 
 
 I do not forget the position assumed by some 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 45 
 
 that constitutional questions are to be decided by 
 the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such deci 
 sions 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 a very high respect and consid 
 eration in all parallel cases by all other depart 
 ments of the Government; and while it is obvi 
 ously 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 con 
 fess that if the policy of the Government upon 
 the vital question affecting the whole people is to 
 be irrevocably fixed by the decisions of the Su 
 preme Court, the instant they are made, as in ordi 
 nary litigation between parties in personal actions, 
 the people will have ceased to be their own mas 
 ters, unless having to that extent practically re 
 signed their Government 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 
 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 pur 
 poses. One section of our country believes slavery 
 
46 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 is right and ought to be extended, while the other 
 believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended; 
 and this is the only substantial dispute; and 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 supports 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 sepa 
 ration of the sections than before. The foreign 
 slave-trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be 
 ultimately revived, without restriction, in one sec 
 tion; while fugitive slaves, now only partially sur 
 rendered, 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 between them. 
 A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out 
 of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, 
 but the different parts of our country cannot do 
 this. They cannot but remain face to face; and 
 intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must con 
 tinue between them. Is it possible, then, to make 
 that intercourse more advantageous or more satis 
 factory after separation than before? Can aliens 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 47 
 
 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 questions as to terms 
 of intercourse are again upon you. 
 
 This country, with its institutions, belongs to the 
 geople who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow 
 weary of the existing government, they can exer- 
 aise their constitutional right of amending, or their 
 revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. 
 I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy 
 and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the 
 National Constitution amended. While I make no 
 cecommendation of amendment, I fully recognize 
 full authority of the people over the whole 
 subject, to be exercised in either of the modes pre 
 scribed in the instrument itself, and I should, un 
 der existing circumstances, favor, rather than op 
 pose, a fair opportunity being afforded the people 
 to act upon it. 
 
 I will venture to add that to me the convention 
 mode seems preferable, in that it allows amend 
 ments to originate with the people themselves, in 
 stead of only permitting them to take or reject 
 propositions originated by others not especially 
 chosen for the purpose, and which might not be 
 precisely such as they would wish either to accept 
 
48 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 or refuse. I understand that a proposed amend 
 ment to the Constitution (which amendment, how 
 ever, I have not seen) has passed Congress, to the 
 effect that the Federal Government shall never in 
 terfere with the domestic institutions of States, in 
 cluding that of persons 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 ob 
 jection 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 the terms for the separation of the 
 States. The people themselves, also, can do this 
 if they choose, but the Executive, as such, has noth 
 ing to do with it. His duty is to administer 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 prevail by the judgment 
 of this great tribunal, the American people. By 
 the frame of the Government under which we live, 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 49 
 
 this same people have wisely given their public 
 servants but little power for mischief, and have 
 with equal wisdom provided for the return of that 
 little to their own hands at very short intervals. 
 While the people retain their virtue and vigilance, 
 no administration, by any extreme 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 tak 
 ing 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 imme 
 diate power, if it would, to change either. 
 
 If it were admitted that you who are dissatis 
 fied hold the right side in the dispute, there is still 
 no single reason for precipitate action. Intelli 
 gence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance 
 on Him w r ho has never yet forsaken this favored 
 land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, 
 all our present difficulties. 
 
 In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-country- 
 
50 NOTED SPEECHES 
 
 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 your 
 selves the aggressors. You have no oath regis 
 tered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I 
 shall have the most solemn one to " preserve, pro 
 tect, and defend " it. 
 
 I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but 
 friends. We must not be enemies. Though pas 
 sion may have strained, it must not break, our 
 bonds of affections. 
 
 The mystic cords of memory, stretching from 
 every battlefield and patriot grave to every living 
 heart and hearthstone 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. 
 
LINCOLN S GETTYSBURG SPEECH 
 
 AT THE DEDICATION OF THE NATIONAL CEME 
 TERY AT GETTYSBURG, PA., NOVEMBER 15, 
 1863 
 
 (FOURSCORE and seven years ago our fathers 
 brought forth upon this continent a new nation, 
 conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposi 
 tion that all men are created equaft Now we are 
 engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that 
 nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedi 
 cated, 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 power to add or detract. The world 
 will little note, nor long remember, what we say 
 here; but it can never forget what they did here. 
 It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here 
 
 51 
 
52 NOTED SPEECHES 
 
 to the unfinished work which they who fought here 
 have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather 
 for us to be here dedicated to the great task re 
 maining before us, that from these honored dead 
 we take increased devotion to that cause for which 
 they gave the last full measure of devotion; that 
 we here highly resolve that these dead shall not 
 Qiave died in vain; that this nation, under God, 
 shall have a new birth of freedom, and that gov 
 ernment of the people, by the people, and for the 
 people, shall not perish from the eartftN 
 
LINCOLN S SECOND INAUGURAL 
 ADDRESS 
 
 MARCH 4, 1865 
 
 FELLOW-COUNTRYMEN: At this second ap 
 pearing to take the oath of the Presidential of 
 fice, there is less occasion for an extended address 
 than there was at the first. Then a statement(some- 
 what in detail of a course to be pursued) seemed 
 very fitting and proper. Now/ at the expiration of 
 four years, during which public declarations have 
 been constantly called forth on( x every point and 
 phase) of the great contest which still Absorbs the 
 attention and engrosses the energies]pf the nationXN 
 little that is new could be presented. 
 
 "The progress of our arms, upon which all else 
 chiefly depends, is as well known to the gublic as 
 to myself; and it js, 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. J\]\ dreaded it; all sought to 
 ayjpjd it. While the inaugural address was being 
 
 53 
 
54 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 delivered from this place, devoted altogether to 
 savmjhe^LJrjoji without war, insurgent agents 
 were in the city seeking to ejcstro^Jt without war 
 seeking to dissolve the Union and divide the 
 effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated 
 war; but one of them would make war rather than 
 let the nation survive, 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_jd4Stributed generally over the 
 Union, but localized in the southern part of it. 
 These slaves constituted a pecujiar^and powerful 
 interest. All knew that this interest was somehow 
 the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, 
 and extend this interest, was the o^pct for which 
 the insurgents would rend the Union ej^en by war, 
 while the Government claimed no right to do more 
 than to restrict trie territorial enlargement of it. 
 
 Neither party expected for the war the magni 
 tude or the duration which it has already attained. 
 Neither anticipated that the cajffi of the conflict 
 might cease W+&! or even before, the conflict it 
 self should cease. Each looked for an easier 
 triumph, and a result less fundamental and 
 astounding. \ 
 
 Both read the same Bible and pray to the same 
 God, and each invokes his aid against the other. 
 It m_ay^seerr^ strange that any men should dare tc 
 ask a just God s assistance in wringing their bread 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 55 
 
 from the sweat of other men s faces; bu 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 shall suppose that American slavery is one 
 of these offenses^ which, in the providence of Godj 
 must needs come, but which, having continued 
 through His appointed time, He now wills to re 
 move, and that Hej^ives to both North and South 
 this terriBle war as the woe due to those by whom 
 the offense came, shall we discern therein any de 
 parture from those divine attributes which the be 
 lievers in a living God always ascribe to Him? 
 Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this 
 mighty scourge of war may soon pafcs away. Yet, 
 if God wijls that it continue until all the wealth 
 piled by the bondman s two hundred and fifty 
 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until 
 every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be 
 paid with another drawn with the sword; as was 
 said three thousand years ago, so still it must be 
 saidjt "-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 
 
56 NOTED SPEECHES 
 
 in, to bind up the nation s wounds, to care for 
 him who shall have borne the battle^and for his 
 widow and orphansr-to do all which may achieve 
 and cherish a just and a lasting peace among our 
 selves and with all nations, 
 
PROCLAMATION OF EMANCIPATION 
 
 JANUARY I, 1863 
 
 WHEREAS, on the twenty-second day of Septem 
 ber, 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 following, to wit: 
 
 u 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 Government of the United 
 States, including the military and naval authority 
 thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom 
 of such persons, and will do no act or acts to re 
 press such persons or any of them, in any efforts 
 they may make for their actual freedom. 
 
 4 That the Executive will, on the first day of 
 January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the 
 States and parts of States, if any, in which the peo 
 ple thereof respectively shall then be in rebellion 
 
 57 
 
58 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 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 elec 
 tions 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-in-Chief of the army 
 and navy of the United States in time of actual 
 armed rebellion against the authority and govern 
 ment of the United States, and as a fit and neces 
 sary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, 
 do, on this first day of January, in the year of our 
 Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, 
 and in accordance with my purpose so to do, pub 
 licly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred 
 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 following, 
 to wit: 
 
 Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes 
 of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, 
 St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 59 
 
 Terre Bonne, Lafourche, St. Marie, 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 designated as West Vir 
 ginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, 
 Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess 
 Anne, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk 
 and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are 
 for the present left precisely as if this proclama 
 tion 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 henceforth 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 declared 
 to be free, to abstain from all violence, unless in 
 necessary self-defense; and I recommend to them 
 that in all cases, when allowed, they labor faith 
 fully for reasonable wages. 
 
 And I further declare and make known that 
 such persons of suitable condition will be received 
 into the armed service of the United States, to 
 garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, 
 and to man vessels of all sorts in said service. 
 
60 NOTED SPEECHES 
 
 And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an 
 act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon 
 military necessity, I invoke the considerate judg 
 ment of mankind and the gracious favor of Al 
 mighty God. 
 
 In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my 
 name, 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 sixty- 
 
 [ L. s. ] three, and of the Independence of the 
 United States the eighty-seventh. 
 
 By the President : ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 
 
 WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 
 
STEPHEN ARNOLD DOUGLAS 
 
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 
 
 STEPHEN ARNOLD DOUGLAS was born at Bran 
 don, Vermont, on the 236 of April, 1813. 
 
 When a child he lived on a farm, working in 
 the fields in the summer and attending the district 
 school during the winter months. At the age oS 
 fifteen young Douglas realized his condition in life, 
 that his widowed mother was not in circum 
 stances to give him an education, so he suppressed 
 his ambition for college for the time, and appren 
 ticed himself to a cabinet-maker in Middlebury. 
 Here he worked with enthusiasm for two years. 
 The following year he spent in Brandon, his na 
 tive town, attending the academy. At the close 
 of that year he moved with his mother to Canan- 
 daigua, N. Y., at once becoming a student at the 
 fine academy located there. He remained in 
 Canandaigua three years, applying himself dili 
 gently to his academic studies, also finding time 
 to follow a course in the study of law. 
 
 In 1833 tne young man of twenty-three years 
 removed to Winchester, 111., to earn for himself a 
 
 61 
 
62 NOTED SPEECHES 
 
 livelihood. For a few months he taught school 
 and continued his law studies. The next year he 
 was admitted to the bar in Jacksonville, where he 
 had stopped for a short time, before reaching 
 Winchester. 
 
 Mr. Douglas was elected State s Attorney of 
 the First Judicial District in 1835. ^ n ^36 he 
 was elected to the Illinois legislature. The fol 
 lowing year he was appointed Register of Public 
 Lands at Springfield, to which place he removed. 
 In 1841 he was appointed Secretary of State; but 
 soon resigned, to accept the office of Judge of the 
 Supreme Court of the State. In 1843 Mr- Douglas 
 was elected to Congress, where he served for two 
 terms; he was re-elected to the House for the 
 third term, but at the following session of the 
 legislature, December, 1846, he was chosen for 
 the United States Senate, of which he remained 
 a member until his death. 
 
 Senator Douglas died on the 3d of June, 1861. 
 
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS 
 
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE 
 
 FIRST JOINT DEBATE, DELIVERED AT OTTAWA, 
 ILL., AUGUST 21, 1858 
 
 Douglas s Opening Speech 
 
 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I appear before 
 you to-day for the purpose of discussing the lead 
 ing political topics which now agitate the public 
 mind. By an arrangement between Mr. Lincoln 
 and myself, we are present here to-day for the 
 purpose of having a joint discussion, as the repre 
 sentatives of the two great political parties of the 
 State and Union, upon the principles in issue be 
 tween those parties; and this vast concourse of 
 people shows the deep feeling which pervades 
 the public mind in regard to the questions divid 
 ing us. 
 
 Prior to 1854, this country was divided into two 
 great political parties, known as the Whig and 
 Democratic parties. Both were national and pa 
 triotic, advocating principles that were universal 
 in their application. An old-line Whig could pro 
 claim his principles in Louisiana and Massachu- 
 
 63 
 
64 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 setts alike. Whig principles had no boundary sec 
 tional line; they were not limited by the Ohio river, 
 nor by the Potomac, nor by the line of the free and 
 slave States, but applied and were proclaimed 
 wherever the Constitution ruled or the American 
 flag waved over the American soil. So it was and 
 so it is with the great Democratic party, which 
 from the days of Jefferson until this period has 
 proven itself to be the historic party of this nation. 
 While the Whig and Democratic parties differed in 
 regard to a bank, the tariff, distribution, the specie 
 circular, and the sub-treasury, they agreed on the 
 great slavery question which now agitates the 
 Union. I say that the Whig party and the Demo 
 cratic party agreed on the slavery question, while 
 they differed on those matters of expediency to 
 which I have referred. The Whig party and the 
 Democratic party jointly adopted the compromise 
 measures of 1850 as the basis of a proper and just 
 solution of the slavery question in all its forms. 
 Clay was the great leader, with Webster on his 
 right and Cass on his left and sustained by the pa 
 triots in the Whig and Democratic ranks, who had 
 devised and enacted the compromise measures of 
 1850. 
 
 During the session of Congress of 1853-54, I 
 introduced into the Senate of the United States a 
 bill to organize the Territories of Kansas and Ne- 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 65 
 
 braska on that principle which had been adopted 
 in the compromise measures of 1850, approved by 
 the Whig party and the Democratic party in Illi 
 nois in 1851, and indorsed by the Whig party and 
 the Democratic party in national convention in 
 1852. In order that there might be no misunder 
 standing in relation to the principle involved in 
 the Kansas and Nebraska bill, I put forth the true 
 intent and meaning of the act in these words : " It 
 is the true intent and meaning of this act not to 
 legislate slavery into any State or Territory, or 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 Federal Constitution." Thus you see that 
 up to 1854, when the Kansas and Nebraska bill 
 was brought into Congress for the purpose of car 
 rying out the principles which both parties had up 
 to that time indorsed and approved, there had 
 been no division in this country in regard to 
 that principle, except the opposition of the Abo 
 litionists. . . . 
 
 In 1854 Mr. Abraham Lincoln and Mr. Lyman 
 Trumbull entered into an arrangement, one with 
 the other, and each with his respective friends, to 
 dissolve the old Whig party on the one hand, and 
 to dissolve the old Democratic party on the other, 
 and to connect the members of both into an Abo 
 lition party, under the name and disguise of a Re- 
 
66 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 publican party. The terms of that arrangement be 
 tween Lincoln and Trumbull have been published 
 by Lincoln s special friend, James H. Matheny, 
 Esq. ; and they were that Lincoln should have 
 General Shields place in the United States Senate, 
 which was then about to become vacant, and that 
 Trumbull should have my seat when my term ex 
 pired. Lincoln went to work to Abolitionize the 
 old Whig party all over the State, pretending that 
 he was then as good a Whig as ever; and Trum 
 bull went to work in his part of the State preach 
 ing Abolitionism in its milder and lighter form, and 
 trying to Abolitionize the Democratic party and 
 bring old Democrats handcuffed and bound hand 
 and foot into the Abolition camp. In pursuance 
 of the arrangement, the parties met at Springfield 
 in October, 1854, and proclaimed their new plat 
 form. Lincoln was to bring into the Abolition 
 camp the old-line Whigs and transfer them over 
 to Giddings, Chase, Fred Douglass, and Parson 
 Lovejoy, who were ready to receive them and 
 christen them in their new faith. They laid down 
 on that occasion a platform for their new Republi 
 can party, which was thus to be constructed. I 
 have the resolutions of the State convention then 
 held, which was the first mass State convention ever 
 held in Illinois by the Black Republican party; and 
 I now hold them in my hands and will read a part 
 of them, and cause the others to be printed. Here 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 67 
 
 are the most important and material resolutions of 
 this Abolition platform: 
 
 Resolved, " That we believe this truth to be self- 
 evident, that when parties become subversive of the 
 ends for which they are established, or incapable 
 of restoring the government to the true principles 
 of the Constitution, it is the right and duty of the 
 people to dissolve the political bands by which 
 they may have been connected therewith, and to 
 organize new parties upon such principles and with 
 such views as the circumstances and exigencies of 
 the nation may demand. 
 
 Resohed, " That the times imperatively demand 
 the reorganization of parties, and, repudiating all 
 previous party attachments, names, and predilec 
 tions, we unite ourselves together in defense of the 
 liberty and Constitution of the country, and will 
 hereafter co-operate as the Republican party, 
 pledged to the accomplishment of the following 
 purposes : to bring the administration of the gov 
 ernment back to the control of first principles; to 
 restore Nebraska and Kansas to the position of 
 free Territories; that, as the Constitution of the 
 United States vests in the States and not in Con 
 gress the power to legislate for the extradition of 
 fugitives from labor, to repeal and entirely abro 
 gate the fugitive-slave law; to restrict slavery to 
 those States in which it exists; to prohibit the ad- 
 
68 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 mission of any more slave States into the Union; 
 to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; to 
 exclude slavery from all the Territories over which 
 the general government has exclusive jurisdiction; 
 and to resist the acquirement of any more Terri 
 tories unless the practice of slavery therein for 
 ever shall have been prohibited. 
 
 Resolved, " That in furtherance of these princi 
 ples we will use such constitutional and lawful 
 means as shall seem best adapted to their accom 
 plishment, and that we will support no man for 
 office, under the general or State government, who 
 is not positively and fully committed to the support 
 of these principles, and whose personal character 
 and conduct is not a guarantee that he is reliable, 
 and who shall not have abjured old party al 
 legiance and ties." 
 
 Now, gentlemen, your Black Republicans have 
 cheered every one of those propositions, and yet I 
 venture to say that you cannot get Mr. Lincoln to 
 come out and say that he is now in favor of each 
 one of them. That these propositions, one and all, 
 constitute the platform of the Black Republican 
 party of this day, I have no doubt; and when you 
 were not aware for what purpose I was reading 
 them, your Black Republicans cheered them as good 
 Black Republican doctrines. 
 
 My object in reading these resolutions was to 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 69 
 
 put the question to Abraham Lincoln this day, 
 whether he now stands and will stand by each 
 article in that creed, and carry it out. X^i] I de 
 sire to know whether Mr. Lincoln to-day stands 
 as he did in i84> in favor of the unconditional 
 repeal of the fugitive-slave law. [2] I desire him 
 to answer whether he stands pledged to-day, as 
 he did in 1854, against the admission of any more 
 slave States into the Union, even if the people 
 want them. [3] I want to know whether he stands 
 pledged against the admission of a new State into 
 the Union with such a constitution as the people 
 of that State may see fit to make. [4] I want to 
 know whether he stands to-day pledged to the 
 abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. 
 [5] I desire him to answer whether he stands 
 pledged to the prohibition of the slave-trade be 
 tween the different States. [6] I desire to know 
 whether he stands pledged to prohibit slavery in 
 all the Territories of the United States, north as 
 well as south of the Missouri Compromise line. 
 [7] I desire him to answer whether he is opposed 
 to the acquisition of any more territory unless 
 slavery is prohibited therein. I want his answer 
 to these questions. Your affirmative cheers in 
 favor of this Abolition platform are not satisfac 
 tory. I ask Abraham Lincoln to answer these 
 questions, in order that, when I trot him down to 
 lower Egypt [Southernmost Illinois] I may put 
 
70 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 the same questions to him. My principles are the 
 same everywhere. I can proclaim them alike in 
 the North, the South, the East, and the West. 
 My principles will apply wherever the Constitu 
 tion prevails and the American flag waves. I de 
 sire to know whether Mr. Lincoln s principles will 
 bear transplanting from Ottawa to Jonesboro? I 
 put these questions to him to-day distinctly, and 
 ask an answer. I have a right to an answer; for 
 I quote from the platform of the Republican 
 party, made by himself and others at the time that 
 party was formed, and the bargain made by Lin 
 coln to dissolve and kill the old Whig party and 
 transfer its members, bound hand and foot, to 
 the Abolition party undej* the direction of Gid- 
 dings and Fred Douglas^ 
 
 In the remarks I ha<re made on this platform, 
 and the position of Mr. Lincoln upon it, I mean 
 nothing personally disrespectful or unkind to that 
 gentleman. I have known him for nearly twenty- 
 five years. There were many points of sympathy 
 between us when we first got acquainted. We 
 were both comparatively boys, and both strug 
 gling with poverty in a strange land. I was a 
 school-teacher in the town of Winchester, and he 
 a flourishing grocery-keeper in the town of Salem. 
 He was more successful in his occupation than I 
 was in mine, and hence more fortunate in this 
 world s goods. Lincoln is one of those peculiar 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 71 
 
 men who perform with admirable skill everything 
 which they undertake. I made as good a school 
 teacher as I could, and, when a cabinet-maker, I 
 made a good bedstead and tables, although my old 
 boss said I succeeded better with bureaus and sec 
 retaries than with anything else^mt I believe that 
 Lincoln was always more successful in business 
 than I, for his business enabled him to get into 
 the legislature. I met him there, however, and 
 had sympathy with him, because of the up-hill 
 struggle we both had in life. He was then just 
 as good at telling an anecdote as now. He could 
 beat any of the boys wrestling or running a foot 
 race, in pitching quoits or tossing a copper; could 
 ruin more liquor than all the boys together; and 
 the dignity and impartiality with which he pre 
 sided at a horse-race or fist-fight excited the ad 
 miration and won the praise of everybody that 
 was present and participated. I sympathized 
 with him because he was struggling with difficul 
 ties, and so was I. Mr. Lincoln served with me 
 in the legislature in 1836, when we both retired; 
 and he subsided or became submerged, and he was 
 lost sight of as a public man for some yeai*. In 
 1846, when Wilmot introduced his celebrated 
 proviso, and the Abolition tornado swept over the 
 country, Lincoln again turned up as a member of 
 Congress from the Sangamon district. I was then 
 in the Senate of the United States, and was glad 
 
72 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 to welcome my old friend and companion. Whilst 
 in Congress, he distinguished himself by his op 
 position to the Mexican War, taking the side of 
 the common enemy against his own country; and 
 when he returned home he found that the indigna 
 tion of the people followed him everywhere, and 
 he was again submerged or obliged to retire into 
 private life, forgotten by his former friends. He 
 came up again in 1854, just in time to make this 
 Abolition or Black Republican platform, in com 
 pany with Giddings, Lovejoy, Chase, and Fred 
 Douglass, for the Republican party to stand 
 upon. 
 
 Having formed this new party for the benefit 
 of deserters from Whiggery and deserters from 
 Democracy, and having laid down the Abolition 
 platform which I have read, Lincoln now takes 
 his stand and proclaims his Abolition doctrines. 
 Let me read a part of them. In rus speech at 
 Springfield tn the Convention which nominatecTrTi m 
 forthe Senate he said: 
 
 r^^ln my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis 
 [shall have been reached and passed. 4 A house 
 divided against itself cannot 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 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 73 
 
 .become all one thing or all the other. Either the 
 opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread 
 .of it, and place it where the public mind shall 
 trest 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 
 well as South." [" Good," "Good," and 
 cheers.] 
 
 I am delighted to hear you Black Republicans 
 say, " Good." I have no doubt that doctrine ex 
 presses your sentiments; and I will prove to you 
 now, if you will listen to me, that it is revolution 
 ary and destructive of the existence of this govern 
 ment. Mr. Lincoln, in the extract from which I 
 have read, says that this government cannot en 
 dure permanently in the same condition in which 
 it was made by its framers divided into free and 
 slave States. He says that it has existed for about 
 seventy years thus divided, and yet he tells you 
 that it cannot endure permanently on the same 
 principles and in the same relative condition in 
 which our fathers made it. Why can it not exist 
 divided into free and slave States? Washington, 
 Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, Jay, and 
 the great men of that day made this government 
 divided into free States and slave States, and left 
 each State perfectly free to do as it pleased on 
 the subject of slavery. Why can it not exist on 
 
74 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 the same principles on which our fathers made it? 
 They knew when they framed the Constitution 
 that in a country as wide and broad as this, with 
 such a variety of climate, production, and interest, 
 the people necessarily required different laws and 
 institutions in different localities. They knew that 
 the laws and regulations which would suit the 
 granite hills of New Hampshire would be un- 
 suited to the rice plantations of South Carolina; 
 and they therefore provided that each State should 
 retain its own legislature and its own sovereignty, 
 with the full and complete power to do as 
 it pleased within its own limits, in all that was 
 local and not national. One of the reserved rights 
 of the States was the right to regulate the relations 
 between master and servant, on the slavery ques 
 tion. At the time the Constitution was framed 
 there were thirteen States in the Union, twelve 
 of which were slaveholding States and one a free 
 State. Suppose this doctrine of uniformity 
 preached by Mr. Lincoln, that the States should 
 all be free or all be slave, had prevailed; and 
 what would have been the result? Of course, 
 the twelve slaveholding States would have over 
 ruled the one free State; and slavery would have 
 been fastened by a constitutional provision on 
 every inch of the American republic, instead of 
 being left, as our fathers wisely left it, to each 
 State to decide for itself. Here I assert that uni- 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 75 
 
 formity in the local laws and institutions of the 
 different States is neither possible nor desirable. 
 If uniformity had been adopted when the govern 
 ment was established, it must inevitably have been 
 the uniformity of slavery everywhere, or else the 
 uniformity of negro citizenship and negro equality 
 everywhere. 
 
 We are told by Lincoln that he is utterly op 
 posed to the Dred Scott decision, and will not sub 
 mit to it, for the reason that he says it deprives 
 the negjTopf the rights and privileges of citizen 
 ship, ^cnat is the first and main reason which he 
 assigns for his warfare on the Supreme Court of 
 the United States and its decision^f^ask you, Are 
 you in favor of conferring upon the negro the 
 rights and privileges of citizenship? Do you de 
 sire to strike out of our State constitution that 
 clause which keeps slaves and free negroes out of 
 the State, and allow the free negroes to flow in, 
 and cover your prairies with black settlements? 
 Do you desire to turn this beautiful State into a 
 free negro colony, in order that when Missouri 
 abolishes slavery she can send one hundred thou 
 sand emancipated slaves into Illinois, to become 
 citizens and voters, on an equality with yourselves? 
 If you desire negro citizenship, if you desire to 
 allow them to come into the State and settle with 
 the white man, if you desire them to vote on an 
 equality with yourselves, and to make them eligible 
 
7 6 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 to office, to serve on juries, and to adjudge your 
 rights, then support Mr. Lincoln and the Black 
 Republican party, who are in favor of the citizen 
 ship of the negro. For one, I am opposed to 
 negro citizenship in any and every form. I be 
 lieve this government was made on the white basis. 
 I believe it was made by white men, for the benefit 
 of white men and their posterity forever; and I 
 am in favor of confining citizenship to white men, 
 men of European birth and descent, instead of con 
 ferring it upon negroes, Indians, and other inferior 
 
 errng 
 races^r 
 mr. Li 
 
 Lincoln, following the example and lead 
 of all the little Abolition orators who go around 
 and lecture in the basements of schools and 
 churches, reads from the Declaration of Independ 
 ence that all men were created equal, and then 
 asks, How can you deprive a negro of that equality 
 which God and the Declaration of Independence 
 award to him? He and they maintain that negro 
 equality is guaranteed by the laws of God, and 
 that it is asserted in the Declaration of Independ 
 ence. If they think so, of course they have a right 
 to say so, and so vote. I do not question Mr. Lin 
 coln s conscientious belief that the negro was made 
 his equal, and hence is his brother; but, for my 
 own part, I do not regard the negro as my equal, 
 and positively deny that he is my brother or any 
 kin to me whatever. I do not believe that 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 77 
 
 the Almighty ever intended the negro to be the 
 equal of the white man. If he did, he has been 
 a long time demonstrating the fact. For thou 
 sands of years the negro has been a race upon 
 the earth; and during all that time, in all latitudes 
 and climates, wherever he has wandered or been 
 taken, he has been inferior to the race which he 
 has there met. He belongs to an inferior race, 
 and must always occupy an inferior position. I 
 do not hold that, because the negro is our inferior, 
 therefore he ought to be a slave. By no means can 
 such a conclusion be drawn from what I have said. 
 On the contrary, I hold that humanity and Chris 
 tianity both require that the negro shall have and 
 enjoy every right, every privilege, and every im 
 munity consistent with the safety of the society in 
 which he lives. On that point, I presume, there 
 can be no diversity of opinion. You and I are 
 bound to extend to our inferior and dependent 
 beings every right, every privilege, every facility 
 and immunity consistent with the public good. 
 The question then arises, What rights and privi 
 leges are consistent with the public good? This 
 is a question which each State and each Territory 
 must decide for itself. Illinois has decided it for 
 herself. We have provided that the negro shall 
 not be a slave; and we have also provided that 
 he shall not be a citizen, but protect him in his 
 civil rights, in his life, his person, and his prop- 
 
78 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 erty, only depriving him of all political rights 
 whatsoever and refusing to put him on an equality 
 with the white man. That policy of Illinois is 
 satisfactory to the Democratic party and to me, 
 and if it were to the Republicans there would then 
 be no question upon the subject; but the Republi 
 cans say that he ought to be made a citizen, and 
 when he becomes a citizen he becomes your equal, 
 with all your rights and privileges. They assert 
 the Dred Scott decision to be monstrous because 
 it denies that the negro is or can be a citizen under 
 the Constitution. 
 
 Now, I hold that Illinois had a right to abolish 
 and prohibit slavery as she did, and I hold that 
 Kentucky has the same right to continue and pro 
 tect slavery that Illinois had to abolish it. I hold 
 that New York had as much right to abolish slav 
 ery as Virginia has to continue it, and that each 
 and every State of this Union is a sovereign power, 
 with the right to do as it pleases upon this ques 
 tion of slavery and upon all its domestic institu 
 tions. Slavery is not the only question which comes 
 up in this controversy. There is a far more im 
 portant one to you, and that is, What shall be done 
 with the free negro? ... In relation to the pol 
 icy to be pursued toward the free negroes, we have 
 said that they shall not vote; whilst Maine, on 
 the other hand, has said that they shall vote. 
 Maine is a sovereign State, and has the power to 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 79 
 
 regulate the qualifications of voters within her lim 
 its. I would never consent to confer the right of 
 voting and of citizenship upon a negro, but still 
 I am not going to quarrel with Maine for differ 
 ing from me in opinion. Let Maine take care of 
 her own negroes, and fix the qualifications of her 
 own voters to suit herself, without interfering with 
 Illinois; and Illinois will not interfere with Maine. 
 So with the State of New York. She allows the 
 negro to vote provided he owns two hundred and 
 fifty dollars worth of property, but not otherwise. 
 While I would not make any distinction whatever 
 between a negro who held property and one who 
 did not, yet if the sovereign State of New York 
 chooses to make that distinction it is her business, 
 and not mine; and I will not quarrel with her for 
 it. She can do as she pleases on this question if she 
 minds her own business, and we will do the same 
 thing. Now, my friends, if we will only act con 
 scientiously and rigidly upon this great principle 
 of popular sovereignty, which guarantees to each 
 State and Territory the right to do as it pleases 
 on all things local and domestic instead of Con 
 gress interfering, w r e will continue at peace one 
 with another. Why should Illinois be at war with 
 Missouri, or Kentucky with Ohio, or Virginia with 
 New York, merely because their institutions differ? 
 Our fathers intended that our institutions should 
 differ. They knew that the North and the South, 
 
8o NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 having different climates, productions, and inter 
 ests, required different institutions. This doctrine 
 of Mr. Lincoln, of uniformity among the institu- 
 tons of the different States, is a new doctrine never 
 dreamed of by Washington, Madison, or the fram- 
 ers of this government. Mr. Lincoln and the 
 Republican party set themselves up as wiser than 
 these men who made this government, which has 
 flourished for seventy years under the principle of 
 popular sovereignty, recognizing the right of each 
 State to do as it pleased. Under that principle, 
 we have grown from a nation of three or four 
 millions to a nation of about thirty millions of 
 people. We have crossed the Alleghany moun 
 tains and filled up the whole Northwest, turning 
 the prairie into a garden, and building up churches 
 and schools, thus spreading civilization and Chris 
 tianity where before there was nothing but savage 
 barbarism. Under that principle we have become, 
 from a feeble nation, the most powerful on the 
 face of the earth; and, if we only adhere to that 
 principle, we can go forward increasing in terri 
 tory, in power, in strength, and in glory until the 
 Republic of America shall be the north star that 
 shall guide the friends of freedom throughout the 
 civilized world. And why can we not adhere to 
 the great principle of self-government upon which 
 our institutions were originally based? I believe 
 that this new doctrine preached by Mr. Lincoln 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 81 
 
 and his party will dissolve the Union if it suc 
 ceeds. They are trying to array all the Northern 
 States in one body against the South, to excite a 
 sectional war between the Free States and the 
 Slave States, in order that the one or the other may 
 be driven to the wall. 
 
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE 
 
 FIRST JOINT DEBATE, DELIVERED AT OTTAWA, 
 ILL., AUGUST 21, 1858 
 
 Lincoln s Reply 
 
 MY FELLOW-CITIZENS: When a man hears 
 himself somewhat misrepresented, it provokes him, 
 at least I find it so with myself; but when mis 
 representation becomes very gross and palpable it 
 is more apt to amuse him. The first thing I see 
 fit to notice is the fact that Judge Douglas alleges, 
 after running through the history of the old Demo 
 cratic and the old Whig parties, that Judge Trum- 
 bull and myself made an arrangement in 1854 by 
 which I was to have the place of General Shields 
 in the United States Senate, and Judge Trumbull 
 was to have the place of Judge Douglas. Now 
 all I have to say upon that subject is that I think 
 no man not even Judge Douglas can prove it, 
 because it is not true. I have no doubt he is " con 
 scientious " in saying it. As to those resolutions 
 that he took such a length of time to read, as be 
 ing the platform of the Republican party in 1854, 
 
 82 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 83 
 
 I say I never had anything to do with them; and 
 I think Trumbull never had. Judge Douglas can 
 not show that either of us ever did have anything 
 to do with them. I believe this is true about those 
 resolutions : There was a call for a convention to 
 form a Republican party at Springfield; and I think 
 that my friend, Mr. Lovejoy, who is here upon 
 this stand, had a hand in it. I think this is true; 
 and I think, if he will remember accurately, he 
 will be able to recollect that he tried to get me 
 into it and I would not go in. I believe it is also 
 true that I went away from Springfield, when the 
 convention was in session, to attend court in Taze- 
 well County. It is true they did place my name, 
 though without authority, upon the committee, and 
 afterward wrote me to attend the meeting of the 
 committee; but I refused to do so, and I never 
 had anything to do with that organization. This 
 is the plain truth about all that matter of the 
 resolutions. 
 
 Now, about this story that Judge Douglas tells 
 of Trumbull bargaining to sell out the old Demo 
 cratic party, and Lincoln agreeing to sell out the 
 old Whig party, I have the means of knowing 
 about that; Judge Douglas cannot have; and I 
 know there is no substance to it whatever. Yet 
 I have no doubt he is " conscientious " about it. 
 I know that after Mr. Lovejoy got into the legis 
 lature that winter he complained to me that I had 
 
84 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 told all the ofd Whigs of his district that the old 
 Whig party was good enough for them, and some 
 of them voted against him because I told them so. 
 Now, I have no means of totally disproving such 
 charges as this which the Judge makes. A man 
 cannot prove a negative; but he has a right to 
 claim that, when a man makes an affirmative 
 charge, he must offer some proof to show the truth 
 of what he says. I certainly cannot introduce tes 
 timony to show the negative about things; but I 
 have a right to claim that, if a man says he knows 
 a thing, then he must show how he knows it. I 
 always have a right to claim this, and it is not 
 satisfactory to me that he may be " conscientious " 
 on the subject. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, I hate to waste my time on 
 such things, but in regard to that general Abolition 
 tilt that Judge Douglas makes when he says that 
 I was engaged at that time in selling out and 
 Abolitionizing the old Whig party, I hope you will 
 permit me to read a part of a printed speech that 
 I made then at Peoria, which will show altogether 
 a different view of the position I took in that con 
 test of 1854. \Vo\ce: "Put on your specs."] 
 Yes, sir, I am obliged to do so; I am no longer 
 a young man : 
 
 " This is the repeal of the Missouri Compro 
 mise. The foregoing history may not be precisely 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 85 
 
 accurate in every particular; but I am sure it is 
 sufficiently so for all the uses I shall attempt to 
 make of it, and in it we have before us the chief 
 materials enabling us to correctly judge whether 
 the repeal of the Missouri Compromise is right or 
 wrong. 
 
 " I think, and shall try to show, that it is wrong, 
 wrong in its direct effect, letting slavery into 
 Kansas and Nebraska, and wrong in its pro 
 spective principle, allowing it to spread to every 
 other part of the wide world where men can be 
 found inclined to take it. 
 
 " This declared indifference, but as I must think 
 covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot 
 but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous in 
 justice of slavery itself. I hate it because it de 
 prives our republican example of its just influence 
 in the world; enables the enemies of free institu 
 tions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites; 
 causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our 
 sincerity, and especially because it forces so many 
 really good men amongst ourselves into an open 
 war with the very fundamental principles of civil 
 liberty, criticising the Declaration of Independ 
 ence, and insisting that there is no right principle 
 of action but self -interest. 
 
 " Before proceeding, let me say I think I have 
 no prejudice against the Southern people. They 
 are just what we would be in their situation. If 
 
86 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 slavery did not now exist among them, they would 
 not introduce it. If it did now exist among us, 
 we should not instantly give it up. This I be 
 lieve of the masses North and South. Doubtless 
 there are individuals on both sides who would not 
 hold slaves under any circumstances; and others 
 who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it 
 were out of existence. We know that some South 
 ern men do free their slaves, go North, and be 
 come tip-top Abolitionists; while some Northern 
 ones go South, and become most cruel slavemasters. 
 " When Southern people tell us they are no more 
 responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I 
 acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the 
 institution exists, and that it is very difficult to 
 get rid of it in any satisfactory way, I can under 
 stand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not 
 blame them for not doing what I should not know 
 how to do myself. If all earthly power were 
 given me, I should not know what to do as to 
 the existing institution. My first impulse would 
 be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, 
 to their own native land. But a moment s re 
 flection would convince me that, whatever of high 
 hope (as I think there is) there may be in this in 
 the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If 
 they were all landed there in a day, they would 
 all perish in the next ten days; and there are not 
 surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 87 
 
 world to carry them there in many times ten days/ 
 What then? Free them all, and keep them among 
 us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this bet 
 ters their condition? ^l_ think I would not hold 
 one in slavery, at any rate; yet the point is not 
 clear enough to me to denounce people upon. 
 What next? Free them, and make them politically 
 and socially our equals? My own feelings will 
 not admit of this; and if mine would, we well 
 know that those of the great mass of white people 
 will not. [[Whether this feeling accords with jus 
 tice and sound judgment is not the sole question, if 
 indeed it is any part of it. A universal feeling, 
 whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disre 
 garded. We cannot make them equals.J It does 
 seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation 
 might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this I 
 will not undertake to judge our brethren of the 
 South. 
 
 ;< When they remind us of their constitutional 
 rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but 
 fully and fairly; and I would give them any legis 
 lation for the reclaiming of their fugitives which 
 should not, in its stringency, be more likely to carry 
 a free man into slavery than our ordinary criminal 
 laws are to hang an innocent one. 
 
 " But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no 
 more excuse for permitting slavery to go into our 
 own free territory than it would for reviving the 
 
88 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 African slave-trade by law. The law which for 
 bids the bringing of slaves from Africa, and that 
 which has so long forbidden the taking of them 
 to Nebraska, can hardly be distinguished on any 
 moral principle; and the repeal of the former 
 could find quite as plausible excuses as that of the 
 latter." 
 
 I have reason to know that Judge Douglas 
 knows that I said this. I think he has the answer 
 here to one of the questions he put to me. I do 
 not mean to allow him to catechize me unless he 
 pays back for it in kind. I will not answer ques 
 tions one after another, unless he reciprocates; but 
 as he has made this inquiry, and I have answered 
 it before, he has got it without my getting any 
 thing in return. He has got my answer on the 
 fugitive-slave law. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, I don t want to read at any 
 great length; but this is the true complexion of all 
 I have ever said in regard to the institution of 
 slavery and the black race. This is the whole 
 of it; and anything that argues me into his idea 
 of perfect social and political equality with the 
 negro is but a specious and fantastic arrangement 
 of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chest 
 nut to be a chestnut horse. I will say here, while 
 upon this subject, that I have no purpose, either 
 directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institu- 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 89 
 
 tion of slavery in the States where it exists. I be 
 lieve I have no lawful right to do so, and I have 
 no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to in 
 troduce political and social equality between the 
 white and the black races. There is a physical 
 difference between the two which, in my judgment, 
 will probably forever forbid their living together 
 upon the footing of perfect equality; and, inas 
 much as it becomes a necessity that there must be 
 a difference, I as well as Judge Douglas am in 
 favor of the race to which I belong having the 
 superior position. I have never said anything to 
 the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all 
 this, there is no reason in the world why the negro 
 is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated 
 in the Declaration of Independence, the right to 
 life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold 
 that he is as much entitled to these as the white 
 man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my 
 equal in many respects, certainly not in color, 
 perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. 
 But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave 
 of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is 
 my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the 
 equal of every living man. 
 
 Now I pass on to consider one or two more of 
 these little follies. The Judge is wofully at fault 
 about his early friend Lincoln being a " grocery- 
 keeper." I don t think that it would be a great 
 
90 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 sin if I had been; but he is mistaken. Lincoln 
 never kept a grocery anywhere in the world. It 
 is true that Lincoln did work the latter part of 
 one winter in a little still-house up at the head of 
 a hollow. And so I think my friend, the Judge, 
 is equally at fault when he charges me at the time 
 when I was in Congress of having opposed our 
 soldiers who were fighting in the Mexican War. 
 ^ The Judge did not make his charge very distinctly; 
 but I tell you what he can prove, by referring to 
 the record. You remember I was an Old Whig; 
 and whenever the Democratic party tried to get 
 me to vote that the war had been righteously be 
 gun by the President, I would not do it. But 
 whenever they asked for any money or land-war 
 rants or anything to pay the soldiers there, during 
 all that time, I gave the same vote that Judge 
 Douglas did. You can think as you please as to 
 whether that was consistent. Such is the truth ; 
 and the Judge has the right to make all he can 
 out of it. But when he, by a general charge, con 
 veys the idea that I withheld supplies from the 
 soldiers who were fighting in the Mexican War, 
 or did anything else to hinder the soldiers, he is, 
 to say the least, grossly and altogether mistaken, 
 as a consultation of the records will prove to him. 
 
 As I have not used up so much of my time as 
 I had supposed, I will dwell a little longer upon 
 one or two of these minor topics upon which the 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 91 
 
 Judge has spoken. He has read from my speech 
 in Springfield in which I say that " a house divided 
 against itself cannot stand." Does the Judge say 
 it can stand? I don t know whether he does or 
 not. The Judge does not seem to be attending to 
 me just now, but I would like to know if it is his 
 opinion that a house divided against itself can 
 stand. If he does, then there is a question of 
 veracity, not between him and me, but between the 
 Judge and an authority of a somewhat higher 
 character. 
 
 Now, my friends, I ask your attention to this 
 matter for the purpose of saying something seri 
 ously. I know that the Judge may readily enough 
 agree with me that the maxim which was put forth 
 by the Savior is true, but he may allege that I 
 misapply it; and the Judge has a right to urge that 
 in my application I do misapply it, and then I have 
 a right to show that I do not misapply it. When 
 he undertakes to say that, because I think this na 
 tion so far as the question of slavery is concerned 
 will all become one thing or all the other, I am 
 in favor of bringing about a dead uniformity in 
 the various States in all their institutions, he argues 
 erroneously. The great variety of the local insti 
 tutions in the States, springing from differences in 
 the soil, differences in the face of the country, and 
 in the climate, are bonds of union. They do not 
 make " a house divided against itself," but they 
 
92 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 make a house united. If they produce in one sec 
 tion of the country what is called for by the wants 
 of another section, and this other section can sup 
 ply the wants of the first, they are not matters of 
 discord, but bonds of union, true bonds of union. 
 But can this question of slavery be considered as 
 among these varieties in the institutions of the 
 country? I leave it to you to say whether, in the 
 history of our government, this institution of slav 
 ery has not always failed to be a bond of union, 
 
 * and on the contrary been an apple of discord and 
 an element of division in the house. I ask you to 
 consider whether, so long as the moral constitution 
 of men s minds shall continue to be the same, after 
 this generation and assemblage shall sink into the 
 grave and another race shall arise with the same 
 moral and intellectual development we have, 
 whether, if that institution is standing in the same 
 irritating position in which is now is, it will not 
 continue an element of division? 
 
 If so, then I have a right to say that, in regard 
 to this question, the Union is a house divided 
 against itself; and when the Judge reminds me that 
 I have often said to him that the institution of slav 
 ery has existed for eighty years in some States, and 
 yet it does not exist in some others, I agree to the 
 fact, and I account for it by looking at the posi 
 tion in which our fathers originally placed it, 
 
 . restricting it from the new Territories where it 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 93 
 
 had not gone, and legislating to cut off its source 
 by the abrogation of the slave trade, thus putting 
 the seal of legislation against its spread. The pub 
 lic mind did rest in the belief that it was in the 
 course of ultimate extinction. But lately, I think, 
 and in this I charge nothing on the Judge s mo 
 tives, lately, I think that he, and those acting 
 with him, have placed that institution on a new 
 basis, which looks to the perpetuity and nationali- 
 nation of slavery. And while it is placed upon 
 this new basis, I say and I have said that I believe 
 we shall not have peace upon the question until 
 the opponents of slavery 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 ultimate 
 extinction; or, on the other hand, that its advo 
 cates will push it forward until it shall become 
 alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, 
 North as well as South. Now I believe, if we could 
 arrest the spread and place it where Washington 
 and Jefferson and Madison placed it, it would be 
 in the course of ultimate extinction, and the pub 
 lic mind would, as for eighty years past, believe 
 that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. 
 The crisis would be past, and the institution might 
 be let alone for a hundred years if it should live 
 so long in the States where it exists, yet it would 
 be going out of existence in the way best for both 
 the black and the white races. 
 
94 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 [A voice: " Then do you repudiate Popular 
 Sovereignty?"] 
 
 Well, then, let us talk about popular sover 
 eignty. What is Popular Sovereignty? Is it the 
 right of the people to have slavery or not have it, 
 as they see fit, in the Territories? I will state 
 and I have an able man to watch me my under 
 standing is that Popular Sovereignty, as now ap 
 plied to the question of slavery, does allow the 
 people of a Territory to have slavery if they want 
 to, but does not allow them not to have it if they 
 do not want it. I do not mean that, if this vast 
 concourse of people were in a Territory of the 
 United States, any one of them would be obliged 
 to have a slave if he did not want one; but I do 
 say that, as I understand the Dred Scott decision, 
 if any one man wants slaves all the rest have no 
 way of keeping that one man from holding them. 
 
 When I made my speech at Springfield, of which 
 the Judge complains and from which he quotes, I 
 really was not thinking of the things which he 
 ascribes to me at all. I had no thought in the 
 world that I was doing anything to bring about a 
 war between the Free and Slave States. I had no 
 thought in the world that I was doing anything to 
 bring about a political and social equality of the 
 black and white races. It never occurred to me 
 that I was doing anything or favoring anything 
 to reduce to a dead uniformity all the local insti- 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 95 
 
 tutions of the various States. But I must say, in 
 all fairness to him, if he thinks I am doing some 
 thing which leads to these bad results, it is none 
 the better that I did not mean it. It is just as 
 fatal to the country, if I have any influence in 
 producing it, whether I intend it or not. But can 
 it be true that placing this institution upon the 
 original basis the basis upon which our fathers 
 placed it can have any tendency to set the North 
 ern and the Southern States at war with one an 
 other, or that it can have any tendency to make the 
 people of Vermont raise sugar-cane because they 
 raise it in Louisiana, or that it can compel the 
 people of Illinois to cut pine logs on the Grand 
 Prairie, where they will not grow, because they cut 
 pine logs in Maine, where they do grow? The 
 Judge says this is a new principle started in regard 
 to this question. Does the Judge claim that he is 
 working on the plan of the founders of the gov 
 ernment? I think he says in some of his speeches 
 indeed, I liave one here now that he saw evi 
 dence of a policy to allow slavery to be south of 
 a certain line, while north of it it should be ex 
 cluded; and he saw an indisposition on the part 
 of the country to stand upon that policy, and 
 therefore he set about studying the subject upon 
 original principles, and upon original principles he 
 got up the Nebraska bill ! I am fighting it upon 
 these " original principles," fighting it in the 
 
96 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 Jeffersonian, Washingtonian, and Madisonian 
 fashion. 
 
 Now, my friends, I wish you to attend for a 
 little while to one or two other things in that 
 Springfield speech. My main object was to show, 
 so far as my humble ability was capable of show 
 ing, to the people of this country what I believed 
 was the truth, that there was a tendency, if not 
 a conspiracy, among those who have engineered 
 this slavery question for the last four or five years, 
 to make slavery perpetual and universal in this na 
 tion. Having made that speech principally for 
 that object, after arranging the evidences that I 
 thought tended to prove my proposition, I con 
 cluded with this bit of comment : 
 
 " We cannot absolutely know that these exact 
 adaptations are the results of pre-concert; but, 
 when we see a lot of framed timbers, different por 
 tions of which we know have been gotten out at 
 different times and places, and by different 
 workmen, Stephen [Senator Douglas], Franklin 
 [President Pierce], Roger [Chief Justice Taney], 
 and James [President Buchanan], for instance, 
 and when we see these timbers 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, 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 97 
 
 and not a piece too many or too few, not omit 
 ting even the scaffolding, or if a single piece be 
 lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted 
 and prepared to yet bring such piece in, in such 
 a case we feel 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 
 before the first blow was struck." 
 
 When my friend, Judge Douglas, came to Chi 
 cago on the Qth of July, this speech having been 
 delivered on the i6th of June, he made an 
 harangue there in which he took hold of this speech 
 of mine, showing that he had carefully read it; 
 and, while he paid no attention to this matter at 
 all, but complimented me as being a " kind, ami 
 able, and intelligent gentleman," notwithstanding 
 I had said this, he goes on and deduces, or draws 
 out, from my speech this tendency of mine to set 
 the States at war with one another, to make all the 
 institutions uniform, and set the niggers and white 
 people to marry together. Then, as the Judge had 
 complimented me with these pleasant titles, (I 
 must confess to my weakness) I was a little 
 " taken "; for it came from a great man. I was 
 not very much accustomed to flattery, and it came 
 the sweeter to me. I was rather like the Hoosier 
 with the gingerbread, when he said he reckoned he 
 
98 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 loved it better than any other man, and got less 
 of it. As the Judge had so flattered me, I could 
 not make up my mind that he meant to deal un 
 fairly with me. So I went to work to show him 
 that he misunderstood the whole scope of my 
 speech, and that I really never intended to set the 
 people at war with one another. As an illustra 
 tion, the next time I met him, which was at Spring 
 field, I used this expression, that I claimed no right 
 under the Constitution, nor had I any inclination, 
 to enter into the Slave States and interfere with 
 the institutions of slavery. He says upon that: 
 Lincoln will not enter into the Slave States, but 
 will go to the banks of the Ohio, on this side, and 
 shoot over! He runs on, step by step, in the 
 horse-chestnut style of argument, until in the 
 Springfield speech he says, " Unless he shall be 
 successful in firing his batteries until he shall have 
 extinguished slavery in all the States, the Union 
 shall be dissolved." Now I don t think that was 
 exactly the way to treat " a kind, amiable, intel 
 ligent gentleman." I know if I had asked the 
 Judge to show when or where it was I had said 
 that, if I didn t succeed in firing into the Slave 
 States until slavery should be extinguished, the 
 Union should be dissolved, he could not have 
 shown it. I understand what he would do. He 
 would say, " I don t mean to quote from you, but 
 this was the result of what you say." But I have 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN gg 
 
 the right to ask, and I do ask now, Did you not 
 put it in such a form that an ordinary reader or fr 
 listener would take it as an expression from me? 
 
 In a speech at Springfield, on the night of the 
 1 7th, I thought I might as well attend to my own 
 business a little; and I recalled his attention as well 
 as I could to this charge of conspiracy to national 
 ize slavery. I called his attention to the fact that 
 he had acknowledged in my hearing twice that he 
 had carefully read the speech; and, in the language 
 of the lawyers, as he had twice read the speech 
 and still had put in no plea or answer, I took a 
 default on him. I insisted that I had a right then 
 to renew that charge of conspiracy. Ten days 
 afterwards I met the Judge at Clinton, that is to 
 say, I was on the ground, but not in the discus 
 sion, and heard him make a speech. Then he 
 comes in with his plea to this charge, for the first 
 time; and his plea when put in, as well as I can 
 recollect it, amounted to this : That he never had 
 any talk with Judge Taney or the President of 
 the United States with regard to the Dred Scott 
 decision before it was made; I (Lincoln) ought 
 to know that the man who makes a charge without 
 knowing it to be true falsifies as much as he who 
 knowingly tells a falsehood; and, lastly, that he 
 would pronounce the whole thing a falsehood; but 
 he would make no personal application of the 
 charge of falsehood, not because of any regard for 
 
ioo NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 the u kind, amiable, intelligent gentleman, " but 
 because of his own personal self-respect ! I have 
 understood since then (but [turning to Judge 
 Douglas] will not hold the Judge to it if he is not 
 willing) that he has broken through the " self- 
 respect," and has got to saying the thing out. The 
 Judge nods to me that it is so. It is forfunate for 
 me that I can keep as good-humored as I do, when 
 the Judge acknowledges that he has been trying 
 to make a question of veracity with me. I know 
 the Judge is a great man, while I am only a small 
 man; but I feel that I have got him. I demur to 
 that plea. I waive all objections that it was not 
 filed till after default was taken, and demur to it 
 upon the merits. What if Judge Douglas never 
 did talk with Chief Justice Taney and the Presi 
 dent before the Dred Scott decision was made : 
 does it follow that he could not have had as per 
 fect an understanding without talking as with it? 
 I am not disposed to stand upon my legal advan 
 tage. I am disposed to take his denial as being 
 like an answer in chancery, that he neither had any 
 knowledge, information, nor belief in the exist 
 ence of such a conspiracy. I am disposed to take 
 his answer as being as broad as though he had put 
 it in these words. And now, I ask, even if he had 
 done so, have not I a right to prove it on him, and 
 to offer the evidence of more than two witnesses, 
 by whom to prove it; and if the evidence proves 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN ibi 
 
 the existence of the conspiracy, does his broad an 
 swer denying all knowledge, information, or belief, 
 disturb the fact? It can only show that he was 
 used by conspirators, and was not a leader of them. 
 Now, in regard to his reminding me of the 
 moral rule that persons who tell what they do not 
 know to be true, falsify as much as those who 
 knowingly tell falsehoods. I remember the rule, 
 and it must be borne in mind that in what I have 
 read to you, I do not say that I know such a con 
 spiracy to exist. To that I reply, I believe it. If 
 the Judge says that I do not believe it, then he 
 says what he does not know, and falls within his 
 own rule that he who asserts a thing which he 
 does not know to be true, falsifies as much as he 
 who knowingly tells a falsehood. I want to call 
 your attention to a little discussion on that branch 
 of the case, and the evidence which brought my 
 mind to the conclusion which I expressed as my 
 belief. If, in arraying that evidence, I had stated 
 anything which was false or erroneous, it needed 
 but that Judge Douglas should point it out, and 
 I would have taken it back with all the kindness 
 in the world. I do not deal in that way. If I have 
 brought forward anything not a fact, if he will 
 point it out, it will not even ruffle me to take it 
 back. But if he will not point out anything er 
 roneous in the evidence, is it not rather for him 
 to show by a comparison of the evidence that I 
 
102 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 have reasoned falsely, than to call the " kind, ami 
 able, intelligent gentleman " a liar? If I have 
 reasoned to a false conclusion, it is the vocation 
 of an able debater to show by argument that I have 
 wandered to an erroneous conclusion. 
 
 I want to ask your attention to a portion of the 
 Nebraska bill which Judge Douglas has quoted : 
 " It being the true intent and meaning of this Act 
 not to legislate 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." There 
 upon Judge Douglas and others began to argue in 
 favor of " Popular Sovereignty," the right of the 
 people to have slaves if they wanted them, and to 
 exclude slavery if they did not want them. " But," 
 said, in substance, a Senator from Ohio (Mr. 
 Chase, I believe), " we more than suspect that 
 you do not mean to allow the people to exclude 
 slavery if they wish to; and if you do mean it, 
 accept an amendment which I propose expressly 
 authorizing the people to exclude slavery." I be 
 lieve I have the amendment here before me which 
 was offered, and under which the people of the 
 Territory, through their proper representatives, 
 might, if they saw fit, prohibit the existence of slav 
 ery therein. And now I state it as a fact, to be 
 taken back if there is any mistake about it, that 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 103 
 
 Judge Douglas and those acting with him voted 
 that amendment down. I now think that those 
 men who voted it down had a real reason for do 
 ing so. They know what that reason was. It 
 looks to us, since we have seen the Dred Scott de 
 cision pronounced, holding that u under the Con 
 stitution " the people cannot exclude slavery I say 
 it looks to outsiders, poor, simple, " amiable, intel 
 ligent gentlemen," as though the niche was left as 
 a place to put that Dred Scott decision in, a niche 
 which would have been spoiled by adopting the 
 amendment. And now I say again, if this was not 
 the reason, it will avail the judge much more to 
 calmly and good-humoredly point out to these peo 
 ple what that other reason was for voting the 
 amendment down than swelling himself up to vo 
 ciferate that he may be provoked to call somebody 
 a liar. 
 
 Again, there is in that same quotation from 
 the Nebraska bill this clause: " It being the true 
 intent and meaning of this bill not to legislate slav 
 ery into any Territory or State." I have always 
 been puzzled to know what business the word 
 " State " had in that connection. Judge Douglas 
 knows. He put it there. He knows what he put 
 it there for. We outsiders cannot say what he put 
 it there for. The law they were passing was not 
 about States, and was not making provision for 
 States. What was it placed there for? After see- 
 
104 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 ing the Dred Scott decision, which holds that the 
 people cannot exclude slavery from a Territory, if 
 another Dred Scott decision shall come, holding 
 that they cannot exclude it from a State, we shall 
 discover that when the word was originally put 
 there it was in view of something which was to 
 come in due time; we shall see that it was the 
 other half of something. I now say again, if there 
 is any different reason for putting it there, Judge 
 Douglas, in a good-humored way, without calling 
 anybody a liar, can tell what the reason was. 
 
 Now, my friends, I have but one branch of the 
 subject, in the little time I have left, to which to 
 call your attention; and, as I shall come to a close 
 at the end of that branch, it is probable that I shall 
 not occupy quite all the time allotted to me. Al 
 though on these questions I would like to talk 
 twice as long as I have, I could not enter upon 
 another head and discuss it properly without run 
 ning over my time. I ask the attention of the 
 people here assembled and elsewhere to the course 
 that Judge Douglas is pursuing every day as bear 
 ing upon this question of making slavery national. 
 Not going back to the records, but taking the 
 speeches he makes, the speeches he made yesterday 
 and day before, and makes constantly all over the 
 country, I ask your attention to them. In the 
 first place, what is necessary to make the institution 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 105 
 
 national ? Not war. There is no danger that the 
 people of Kentucky will shoulder their muskets, 
 and, with a young nigger stuck on every bayonet, 
 march into Illinois and force them upon us. There 
 is no danger of our going over there and making 
 war upon them. Then what is necessary for the 
 nationalization of slavery? It is simply the next 
 Dred Scott decision. It is merely for the Supreme 
 Court to decide that no State under the Constitu 
 tion can exclude it, just as they have already de 
 cided that under the Constitution neither Congress 
 nor the Territorial legislature can do it. When 
 that is decided and acquiesced in, the whole thing 
 is done. This being true, and this being the way, 
 as I think, that slavery is to be made national, let 
 us consider what Judge Douglas is doing every day 
 to that end. In the first place, let us see what 
 influence he is exerting on public sentiment. In 
 this and like communities, public sentiment is 
 everything. With public sentiment, nothing can 
 fail: without it, nothing can succeed. Conse 
 quently, he who molds public sentiment goes deeper 
 than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. 
 He makes statutes and decisions possible or impos 
 sible to be executed. This must be borne in mind, 
 as also the additional fact that Judge Douglas is 
 a man of vast influence, so great that it is enough 
 for many men to profess to believe anything when 
 they once find out that Judge Douglas professes to 
 
106 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 believe it. Consider also the attitude he occupies 
 at the head of a large party, a party which he 
 claims has a majority of all the voters in the 
 country. 
 
 This man sticks to a decision which forbids the 
 people of a Territory to exclude slavery, and he 
 does so not because he says it is right in itself, 
 he does not give any opinion on that, but because 
 it has been decided by the court; and, being decided 
 by the court, he is, and you are, bound to take it 
 in your political action as law, not that he judges 
 at all of its merits, but because a decision of the 
 court is to him a " Thus saith the Lord." He 
 places it on that ground alone, and you will bear 
 in mind that thus committing himself unreservedly 
 to this decision commits him to the next one just 
 as firmly as to this. He did not commit himself 
 on account of the merit or demerit of the decision, 
 but it is a " Thus saith the Lord." The next 
 decision, as much as this, will be a " Thus saith 
 the Lord." There is nothing that can divert or 
 turn him away from this decision. It is nothing 
 that I point out to him that his great prototype, 
 General Jackson, did not believe in the binding 
 force of decisions. It is nothing to him that Jeffer 
 son did not so believe. I have said that I have 
 often heard him approve of Jackson s course in 
 disregarding the decision of the Supreme Court 
 pronouncing a national bank constitutional. He 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 107 
 
 says I did not hear him say so. He denies the 
 accuracy of my recollection. I say he ought to 
 know better than I; but I will make no question 
 about this thing, though it still seems to me that 
 I heard him say it twenty times. I will tell him, 
 though, that he now claims to stand on the Cin 
 cinnati platform, which affirms that Congress can 
 not charter a national bank, in the teeth of that 
 old standing decision that Congress can charter a 
 bank. And I remind him of another piece of his 
 tory on the question of respect for judicial deci 
 sions, and it is a piece of Illinois history, belong 
 ing to a time when a large party to which Judge 
 Douglas belonged were displeased with a decision 
 of the Supreme Court of Illinois because they had 
 decided that a Governor could not remove a Sec 
 retary of State. You will find the whole story in 
 Ford s History of Illinois, and I know that Judge 
 Douglas will not deny that he was then in favor 
 of overslaughing that decision by the mode of add 
 ing five new judges, so as to vote down the four 
 old ones. Not only so, but it ended in the Judge s 
 sitting down on the very bench as one of the five 
 new Judges to break down the four old ones. It 
 was in this way precisely that he got his title of 
 judge. Now, when the Judge tells me that men 
 appointed conditionally to sit as members of a 
 court will have to be catechised beforehand upon 
 some subject, I say, " You know, Judge; you have 
 
io8 NOTED SPEECHES OF 
 
 tried it." When he says a court of this kind will 
 lose the confidence of all men, will be prostituted 
 and disgraced by such a proceeding, I say, u You 
 know best, Judge; you have been through the 
 mill." 
 
 But I cannot shake Judge Douglas s teeth loose 
 from the Dred Scott decision. Like some obsti 
 nate animal (I mean no disrespect) that will hang 
 on when he has once got his teeth fixed, you may 
 cut off a leg or you may tear away an arm, still 
 he will not relax his hold. And so I may point 
 out to the Judge, and say that he is bespattered all 
 over, from the beginning of his political life to 
 the present time, with attacks upon judicial deci 
 sions; I may cut off limb after limb of his public 
 record, and strive to wrench from him a single 
 dictum of the court, yet I cannot divert him from 
 it. He hangs to the last to the Dred Scott deci 
 sion. These things show there is a purpose strong 
 as death and eternity for which he adheres to this 
 decision, and for which he will adhere to all other 
 decisions of the same court. [A voice: " Give us 
 something besides Dred Scott."] Yes; no doubt 
 you want to hear something that don t hurt. 
 
 Now, having spoken of the Dred Scott decision, 
 one more word and I am done. Henry Clay, my 
 beau-ideal of a statesman, the man for whom I 
 fought all my humble life, Henry Clay once said 
 of a class of men who would repress all tendencies 
 
ABRAHAM LINCOLN 109 
 
 to liberty and ultimate emancipation, that they 
 must, if they would do this, go back to the era of 
 our independence and muzzle the cannon which 
 thunders its annual joyous return; they must blow 
 out the moral lights around us; they must pene 
 trate the human soul and eradicate there the love 
 of liberty; and then, and not till then, could they 
 perpetuate slavery in this country! To my think 
 ing, Judge Douglas is, by his example and vast 
 influence, doing that very thing in this community 
 when he says that the negro has nothing in the 
 Declaration of Independence. Henry Clay plainly 
 understood the contrary. Judge Douglas is going 
 back to the era of our Revolution, and to the 
 extent of his ability muzzling the cannon which 
 thunders its annual joyous return. When he in 
 vites any people, willing to have slavery, to estab 
 lish it, he is blowing out the moral lights around 
 us. When he says he " cares not whether slav 
 ery is voted down or voted up," that it is a 
 sacred right of self-government, he is, in my 
 judgment, penetrating the human soul, and eradi 
 cating the light of reason and the love of liberty 
 in this American people. And now I will only 
 say that when, by all these means and appliances, 
 Judge Douglas shall succeed in bringing public 
 sentiment to an exact accordance with his own 
 views, when these vast assemblages shall echo 
 back all these sentiments, when they shall come 
 
no NOTED SPEECHES 
 
 to repeat his views and to avow his principles, and 
 to say all that he says on these mighty questions, 
 then it needs only the formality of the second Dred 
 Scott decision, which he indorses in advance, to 
 make slavery alike lawful in all the States, old as 
 well as new, North as well as South. 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate i dL 
 
 N0\i 2b -5b -3 P M 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 Jfl N 2 5 1966 _a 
 
J 
 
 399188 
 
 TNIVHRSITY Ofc CALIFORNIA LIBRARY