The person charging this material is re- sponsible for its return to the library from which it was withdrawn on or before the Latest Date stamped below. Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from the University. To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN L161—0O-1096 ‘ a i Ny 6) K 1924 a cop.2 “aa ae Return this boc. Latest Date stampru_ charge is made on all v_. books. University of Illinois Library MAY = (945 2-l2-6 . LIBRARY ‘ UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS URBANA LINCOLN IN 1865. From a rare negative privately owned. Che Academy Classics Pe NRG.©) EN ADDRESSES AND LETTERS BOE DsrOR, SCHOOL USE BY JOHN M. AVENT PRINCIPAL OF CURTIS HIGH SCHOOL FORMERLY HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH JULIA RICHMAN HIGH SCHOOL NEW YORK CITY ALLYN AND BACON BOSTON NEW YORK CHICAGO ATLANTA SAN FRANCISCO COPYRIGHT, 1924 BY ALLYN AND BACON Norwood jpress J.S. Cushing Co. — Berwick & Smith Co. Norwood, Mass., U.S.A. 3 ix | ee ‘ee Se : ps = US a PREFACE ‘ © = In the re-valuation of American literature few things are more certain than that the addresses and letters of . Abraham Lincoln will be accorded high rank. Daniel 3 Webster will probably remain our supreme orator, and » his Reply to Hayne the high-water mark of eloquence > in this country. But Lincoln is more than an orator: ) he is our great interpreter of democracy. His speeches , were struck off in the heat of his labors in the days that « tested that democracy in the furnace of a great civil > war. “Beyond his own country,” says Lord Charn- ~ wood, ‘“‘some of us recall his name as the greatest among ., those associated with the cause of popular government.” +. As English constitutional government found a brilliant . exponent in Edmund Burke, American constitutional + government found one in Abraham Lincoln. 3 Hence, the current tendency in high schools to give __ to the study of Lincoln as much time as was formerly 4 given to Burke, seems entirely wise. With the same inevitable logic, and the same constant reliance on J universal principles, that make a study of Burke so ~ fruitful, Lincoln is, in addition, simpler, more direct, ‘and never consciously rhetorical. Moreover, a study 2 of Lincoln’s speeches cannot fail to reveal a steady ~ growth in the power of thought and expression that - came only as a result of a determination to grasp his lll ~ iv Preface subject, to be heard, and to be understood. The Peoria speech, for example, is his rough draft of the great Cooper Union address. Then too, to know Lincoln thoroughly is to know the most vital part of the history of our country; the serious student will find here a rich field for further reading. One of the chief aims of this volume is to provide abundant material for a comparative study both of speeches and letters. As a letter writer Lincoln de- serves study for his ability to say momentous things with simplicity and power. All the world knows the letters to Horace Greeley and Mrs. Bixby. But fine as these are — in widely different ways — the letters to Hooker, Schurz, Grant, Conkling, Hodges, and Brown- ing, are remarkable for a racy idiom, an unfailing sense of word values, and a courageous facing of facts. Emphasis has been placed upon the questions for study and report toward the end of the volume, rather than upon extended notes. Sufficient explanatory matter has been given in passing, however, to prevent stumbling. A chronological arrangement, together with the introductions to each selection, makes the book in effect a biography, which it is hoped, will prove useful not only as a text for study in English literature, but also as a source book in American history. J. M.A. FOREWORD TO THE STUDENT WHENEVER we try to explain why Lincoln had such extraordinary influence over the minds of the men who heard him, we find that we can state it briefly by saying that Lincoln said just what he meant, and meant just what he said. ‘‘I am never easy when I am handling a thought,’ he said, ‘‘till I have bounded it north, and bounded it south, and bounded it east, and bounded it west.”’ He had no patience with the muddled thinking that could argue “that a horse chestnut is a chestnut horse.””’ Add to this his knack of knowing how to adjust his talk to the audience he was facing, and we account for much of his power. We must not forget, of course, to include the character behind the language ; the man who was willing to live by, and if necessary, to die by, what he said. When such skill in the use of language, and such strength of character are united in one person, mankind simply must pay homage. It is inevitable. There is no mystery in Lincoln’s method of getting results: he chose the best models of writing and speak- ing that he could find, and he labored to make his own bear comparison with these. As he held firmly, in his political principles, to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, so in language he followed Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and the Old and New Testa- ments. He habitually sought criticism and advice on Vv Vi Foreword to the Student both the form and content of important papers, readily adopting suggestions that appealed to his judgment. He had a sensitive regard for the values of specific words, and strove to get the precise shade of meaning. Though he read few books, these he read with such studious care that they became part of him. And so, in some very important respects, the study of Lincoln is a study in English language and literature. To a considerable extent, indeed, he is a product of our literature ; and in some instances he produced what we shall continue to cherish as masterpieces of our language. CONTENTS BIBLIOGRAPHY . ; , : ‘ : : IntTRoDuUcTION: A Brigr Mermorr or LINCOLN . ADDRESSES AND LETTERS ANNOUNCEMENT OF LINCOLN’S CANDIDACY FOR THE LEGISLATURE : ? : : , : ‘ FrRoM THE ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF SANGAMON County : : PouiticaL VIEWS IN 1836 PROTEST AGAINST SLAVERY : : : : . Letters To His Law Partner WixtuiAM H. HERNDON LeTTers To JoHN D. JOHNSTON THe ProrIA SPEECH LETTER TO GEORGE ROBERTSON : : , SPEECH AT THE REPUBLICAN STATE CONVENTION, SPRING- FIELD : : THE CHALLENGE TO DovuGLas Tue First Lincotn-DovuGusas DEBATE THE Rea IssuE : Letter To H. D. SHarpPe . : THe CoLuMBUS SPEECH : LINCOLN’s AUTOBIOGRAPHY . : : 5 THE Cooper UNION SPEECH. Letter TO THURLOW WEED. FAREWELL ADDRESS AT SPRINGFIELD ADDRESS IN INDEPENDENCE HALL, PHILADELPHIA First INAuGURAL ADDRESS ; LINCOLN’s REPLY TO SECRETARY SEWARD LETTER TO REVERDY JOHNSON Lerrer TO Mayor RAMSEY vil xill “JOU BS 106 109 138 139 140 142 155 158 160 Viil Contents PAGE LETTER To O. H. BRownina : : : 3 aU LETTER TO GENERAL HUNTER d : OOo LETTER TO GENERAL GEORGE B. McCim.tan ; eelGo LETTER TO REVERDY JOHNSON . ; : “ . 166 TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR ANDREW , 4 ‘ mos LETTER TO Horack GREELEY : ‘ J ; . 168 TELEGRAMS TO McCLELLAN . : : A : mot WN, REPLY TO A COMMITTEE FROM THE RELIGIOUS DENOM- INATIONS OF CHICAGO : : : é ‘ AY: LETTER TO CarL SCHURZ : : : : : eng LINCOLN AND THE DESERTERS 5 ‘ ; ‘ ae He LETTER TO GENERAL N. P. Banks : ; . 179 LETTER TO WILLIAM H. SEWARD AND SALMON P. Caan 181 EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION 2 : ‘ ’ Peer Ne! LETTER TO GENERAL JOHN A. McCLERNAND : jalan LETTER TO MANCHESTER WORKINGMEN , P Lr LETTER TO JOSEPH HOOKER . , ; : . 189 LETTER TO GOVERNOR HoRATIO SEYMOUR . : seek TELEGRAMS TO GENERAL JOSEPH HOOKER . ; . 192 LETTER TO GENERAL U. 8S. GRANT ; ; ; ELLOS LETTER TO JAMES C. CONKLING . . ; : . 194 LETTERS TO JAMES H. HACKETT . , : E 2200 THE GETTYSBURG ADDRESS . é : : ; fone) LETTER TO SALMON P. CHASE . d ; ; 2 4203 Lettrer. To A. G. Hopeks . : ; : ‘ ae 20 Two TELEGRAMS TO THE FAMILY . : ; ; «208 LETTER TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT , ; ; eZ TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S.’ GRANT . ! ; 5 UD Letrer To Mrs. BrixBy , . ; : ‘ 1, olO LeTTeR TO GENERAL GRANT. 3 ; ; : weeU SECOND INAUGURAL ADDRESS . : ; ; ore kl Tue Last Pusiic ADDRESS . : , , . » 214 CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. k , , : ‘ ners QUESTIONS FOR STUDY AND REPORT ’ : Go20 LISTS OP ALLUSTRATIONS Lincoln in 1865. : : : : Frontispiece FACING PAGE Lincoln’s Birthplace : ; Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D. Or Interior of Lincoln Memorial Statue of Lincoln in Lincoln Memorial . The Memorial as It Faces the Washington Manne Borglum’s Head of Lincoln : ‘ Statue of Lincoln by Augustus Saint-Gaudens, Chicas Lincoln at Antietam : : Statue of Lincoln by Daniel Chester Frelich Lincoln, Nebraska . ; Borglum’s Lincoln, Newark, New iene 1X 10 26 50 72 88 110 142 170 202 214 BIBLIOGRAPHY _ Tue letters and addresses in this volume are used by courtesy of Mr. George Haven Putnam, and Mr. William H. Wise, publishers, respectively, of the Con- stitutional Edition of the Writings of Abraham Lincoln, and the Centenary Edition of the Life and Works of Abraham Lincoln. Among the shorter biographies, those by Nicolay, John T. Morse Jr., Norman Hapgood, Nathaniel Stephenson, and Lord Charnwood, have proved extremely valuable, each for a distinct phase of the subject. The Charnwood is unquestionably ‘‘a masterpiece about a masterpiece.” For the historical background of the period, James Ford Rhodes’ History of the United States from 1850 to 1896, is, of course, indispensable. In collateral reading a great deal of interesting material can be found in the history of the newspapers of the time; for this, Payne, History of Journalism makes a very readable introduction. xl INTRODUCTION A BRIEF MEMOIR OF LINCOLN Boyhood in Kentucky ‘THe facts of Lincoln’s boyhood and young manhood are important chiefly because they help us understand the man. He got the frontier training, with all the harshness, all the direct dealing of the wilderness, and all the disadvantages unavoidable in a crude society. The ax helve, the plow, and the scythe were in his hand as winter gave way to spring and spring to summer, year after year, in Kentucky and Indiana, for the whole period that a boy of to-day spends in school and college. The farm on which he was born near Hodgenville, Kentucky, on February 12, 1809, and to which his shiftless father had taken his mother, Nancy Hanks, and his sister, was a miserable affair. Some rolling hills with thin soil, such as are found in the poorer sec- tions of Tennessee, Virginia, or Kentucky to this day, a cabin, and a spring of water — this was his first home. From this his father moved to another “ farm’”’ nearby — Thomas was a restless fellow — and then hearing tales of the country farther west and feeling the urge that everyone seemed to feel at the time, he put his belongings on a flat-boat, went down the Ohio, landed on the Indiana shore, and struck inland for sixteen miles through the forest. xii X1V Introduction Life in Indiana Life in the new home in Indiana was, at least for a time, more rigorous. Trees had to be chopped down and land cleared before corn could be planted. The corn then had to be carried six miles to a grist mill (worked by hand) to be ground into meal before it could be made into bread. ‘This chore fell to the boy. A cabin, too, had to be built. Whether the father was overwhelmed with the other labors, or merely lazy, the fact is that he built a three-walled affair, open to the weather on one side, and without a chimney. In this partial shelter the family lived through the winter. But the rigor of the life began to tell on the mother, and in the following winter she succumbed, leaving the two children (Abraham was then nine) in the care of the father. In later life Lincoln said of his mother, “ I owe all I am to her.”’ The following year Thomas Lincoln returned to Kentucky and married a widow named Sally Bush Johnston, a woman of unusual energy, tact, and sym- pathy. She brought to the Lincoln home in Indiana some much needed household gear and aroused her husband to finish a new cabin which he had begun. “She proved a good and kind mother,” was Lincoln’s tribute to her. The new settlement gradually began to emerge from the wilderness. Roads were cut through, and these formed a cross-road a mile or so from the Lincoln place. A store or two followed, and one or two schools of the crude backwoods type. In these, Lincoln estimated that he spent — in all his youth —less than one year. Introduction XV He did manage, however, with creditable persistence to get hold of a few books and these he read and studied during the long months when there was neither chop- ping, nor plowing, gathering, nor shucking to be done. Among these books the Bible, Pilgrim’s Progress, Rob- inson Crusoe, and Alsop’s Fables made a lasting im- pression on both his thinking and writing. Until he was twenty-one — with the exception of a trip down the Mississippi to New Orleans in a flat-boat — his life was that of the usual pioneer group. He grew exceed- ingly tall — six feet four; was a good ax-man and a good wrestler. There is no reason to believe that he held himself aloof from the pranks of the boys of his settlement. | “ Of Age” in Illinois At this time, when Lincoln had just come of age, his roving father again packed his household and made another move, this time with ox-teams. He stopped on the bank of the Sangamon River, where Lincoln once more helped to settle the family in a new home. Another cabin was built, enough rails split to fence ten or more acres of ground, and the ground was ‘“‘ broken ”’ and sown. Then Lincoln made a start for himself. He hired himself to build and take a boat to New Orleans, and when he returned, he hired himself again to the same employer to take charge of a store in New Salem. Here he seems to have had plenty of leisure. We find him lying on the counter with a bolt of cloth under his head and Kirkham’s “ Grammar” in his hand. In a short time he announced in the local paper that he was a candidate for the legislature ; then he enlisted for the XV1 Introduction Black Hawk War; and returned to be defeated in the election. He bought a store on credit, failed as a store- keeper, was appointed postmaster of the town, did some surveying, and again announced his candidacy for the legislature. This time (18384) he was elected, and in the succeeding three elections was returned, spending eight years in the lower house. In the Legislature In the legislature of Illinois from 1834 to 1842, Lin- coln was a respected, but not a distinguished, member. There is no evidence that he was more than just “a good Whig,’ who was interested, first, in getting the capital moved from Vandalia to Springfield, and then in internal improvements of the sort that seemed to appeal to men everywhere in the younger states. Nevertheless, he did step out of the ranks of the regulars to make a protest against slavery (1837); he was ambitious enough to study law and be admitted to the bar (18387), and he was liked well enough to get the Whig vote for the speakership. It was while he was thus absorbed in the usual rather commonplace activities of a member of the state legislature, that the resistance to slavery in the nation took the form of violent and uncompromising abolition- ism, under the leadership of William Lloyd Garrison in Boston, and Elijah Lovejoy in Illinois. Garrison, who started the Liberator with the announcement, ‘ I will be as harsh as truth, as uncompromising as justice,” was dragged through the streets with a rope around his neck. In the same year negroes in Southampton County, Virginia, under the leadership of Nat Turner, Introduction XVli a negro preacher, massacred sixty white people, most of them women and children. The South accused the Abolitionists. South Carolina offered a reward of five thousand dollars for Garrison, dead or alive; Lovejoy, who persisted in printing his newspaper after his press had been wrecked three times, was shot to death in Alton, about sixty miles from where Lincoln was a law- maker. At this time (1836), Congress, alarmed, passed a“ gag ”’ resolution shutting off all discussion of slavery. For eight years this measure smothered any attempt to bring up the subject that was vexing the country. Slavery Agitation. Mexican War The agitation for and against slavery was ceaseless. Both sides were dissatisfied with the Missouri Com- promise after twenty-five years. The North by the Wilmot Proviso of 1846 wished to exclude slavery from any part of any territory acquired from Mexico. Half of this territory was south of 36° 30’ and if the principle of the Compromise were extended, would be open to slavery. The slavery camp, led by Jefferson Davis, met this advance by introducing a bill to protect slave holders far north in Oregon, where by a similar extension of the 1820 Compromise, slavery would be excluded. Meantime, both parties in the presidential campaign of 1848 attempted to straddle the issue. The Whigs nominated a Southerner who was a big slave owner, and the hero of the war that brought more prospective slave territory into the Union — Zachary Taylor of Louisiana. The Democrats named Lewis Cass, a Northerner who believed in ‘‘ squatter sovereignty ”’ ; that is, that as each state applied for admission the XVIII Introduction people of that state should decide whether it should be slave or free. The political managers of both parties, it is evident, were making a bid for the Southern vote and struggling to hush discordant cries. At this point the Free Soil Party was organized and squarely faced the issue. ‘‘ The settled policy of this government,” they declared, “is not to extend, nation- alize, or encourage slavery, but to limit, localize, and discourage it.”’ These Free Soilers were not abolition- ists. They did not, like Garrison, hold that the Con- stitution ‘“‘ was a covenant with death and an agree- ment with hell.’ They would preserve the Union created by the Constitution and limit slavery through the Constitution. The new party failed to elect its candidate, but it did something more important. The new Congress (1849) was divided between Whigs and Democrats by a margin of only seven, while the Free Soilers had thirteen members. This gave them the whip hand. ) Compromise of 1850 The new Congress was split into two factions over five questions: (1) Shall California (just settled by the rush for gold) be a free state, or kept a territory open to slavery? (2) Shall the Missouri Compromise (allowing slavery) or the Wilmot Proviso (excluding it) be applied to New Mexico? (3) What shall be the boundaries of Texas (a slave state) ? (4) Shall slaves be bought and sold in the District of Columbia — at the very steps of the Capitol? Introduction x1x (5) Shall escaped slaves — or those alleged to be such — be sent back to slavery without trial? The dissension called forth Henry Clay, now in his seventy-third year, to effect a settlement that would satisfy everyone. This he did in the Compromise Bill of 1850. In March of that year, in the Senate, there were delivered the greatest series of speeches in the history of our country. Clay had spoken for harmony ; on the fourth of March, Calhoun, too old and too ill to speak, hurled his last defiance in his address which was read by his colleague; three days later Webster came to the aid of Clay in his famous seventh of March speech and made a stirring plea for the preservation of the Union; four days later, William H. Seward, of New York, opposing Webster, Clay, and Calhoun, attacked the principle of compromise, and declared his hostility to slavery because of a ‘“‘ higher law ”’ than the Constitution. Salmon P. Chase of Ohio followed this with another savage attack upon the principle of compromise. For more than five months the conflict raged. In the meantime, the aged Calhoun, the irreconcilable, passed away; and early in July, President Taylor, who had opposed any concession to slavery, followed. The death of the President placed Vice-President Fill- more, a friend of the compromise, in a position to help the bill through, and it passed. The question of slavery now seemed settled permanently, and the country sank back in relief and exhaustion. The Whigs and Demo- crats in the following election (1852) could find no issue, and the Democratic candidate, Franklin Pierce, of New Hampshire, an intimate friend of Nathaniel Hawthorne, XxX Introduction was swept into office. ‘‘ A sense of repose and serenity,” he said, ‘“‘has been restored throughout the country.” The Kansas-Nebraska Bill The years from 1850 to 1854, were not a real peace, however. They were an armistice. The people, no less than the leaders, were for the most part worn out, and the quarrel ceased from sheer fatigue. Two years after the passage of the bill, Henry Clay, the great compromiser, passed away; and Webster, who sac- rificed his hope of the Presidency in the seventh of March speech, died in the same year. But despite everything that Clay or Webster had done, no basis for permanent peace, as we shall see, had been found. The house was still divided against itself and an issue was presently found that proved it. This issue arose in the Kansas-Nebraska bill intro- duced on January 4, 1854, by Stephen A. Douglas, who after the deaths of Calhoun, Clay, and Webster, stood forth as the dominating figure in Congress. This bill, in brief, proposed to extend the principle of popular sovereignty to the territory of Nebraska and con- sequently to repeal the Missouri Compromise. In- stantly the North was aflame with anger. Mass meetings by the hundred were held; Douglas was denounced as a traitor and burned in effigy; the leg- islatures of six different states protested to Congress. Seward, Sumner, Everett, and Chase attacked the bill in the Senate. Despite this, Douglas, through skill, oratory, and main force, drove the bill through and it was signed by Pierce, urged on by Jefferson Davis, his Secretary of State. Introduction XX1 It was clear now that no compromise would ever hold the Southern slave owners in leash; the line of 36° 30’, which had been the bulwark of the anti-slavery forces was broken through. But afew months and the fertile prairies of the Louisiana Purchase would be swarming with rich planters and negro slaves. The North was aroused and alarmed. In Boston, where some twenty years before, a mob had put a rope around the neck of Garrison, the abolitionist, another mob led by some of the foremost citizens, now attempted to rescue a fugitive negro from jail by battering down the doors. It took artillery and cavalry to get the wretch through the mob to the wharf where he was to be sent back to Virginia. The demand for a political weapon to smash slavery now obliterated party lines. The Whig principles of high tariff, internal improvement, and national bank, faded before the huge question of a slave or a free nation. ‘Two months after the Kansas-Nebraska Bill passed, a new party, adopting the name ‘‘ Republican,”’ “postponing all differences with regard to political - economy ” and demanding the repeal not only of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, but of the Fugitive Slave Law, was formed in Michigan. Several other state con- ventions followed, and a national convention was called for on Washington’s Birthday, 1856. Lincoln the Politician-lawyer During all these years what had become of Abraham Lincoln? His term in the legislature of Illinois had ended in 1842, twelve years back. In the meantime we hear of new names like Douglas, bearing the brunt of the slavery advance; and others in the anti-slavery XXll Introduction defense, like Seward, Chase, Sumner, and Everett; but no Lincoln. It is a strange situation, that the man who was to do most for the cause of freedom at last, was, in much of this period in virtual retirement. He had been admitted to the bar in 1837, and formed a law partnership in Springfield. Toward the close of his term in the Illinois legislature he married Mary Todd, a woman who, though she did not always condone his easy good nature, at least understood him and was ambitious for him. But, for the next four years, party management in Illinois demanded that he step aside to allow others to be sent to Congress; then he served a two-year term, voted, as he said, at least forty times for the Wilmot Proviso, introduced a bill to forbid slavery in the District of Columbia, and went back to Spring- field without getting a renomination. The uncertainty of this political reward was scant nourishment for a poor lawyer whose family was grow- ing. His son, Robert Todd, was born in 18438; a second son in 1846. Abandoning politics, he devoted his time to law practice. It is at this period that we get the familiar portrait of Lincoln as given by his partner. We see the sprawling figure in the untidy office, with feet on the desk. We picture the gaunt, kindly advocate with the battered tall hat in which he kept his documents. We hear of his downright refusal to defend a tainted case, and we feel the growing con- fidence this strange man inspired in his neighbors. Lincoln Aroused. Peoria Speech, October, 1854 It was the repeal of the principle of the Missouri Compromise through the passage of the Kansas- Introduction XXlil Nebraska Bill that awoke Lincoln. ‘I was losing interest in politics when the repeal of the Missouri Compromise aroused me again,” he wrote later. He had of course always disapproved of slavery and opposed the extension of it. The sight of “ slaves shackled together with irons,” he said in a letter to a friend, ‘‘ is a continual torment to me, and I see some- thing like it every time I touch the Ohio or any other slave border.’’ He had voted for the Wilmot Proviso. But in the main, as he said himself, he bit his lips and kept quiet. Almost immediately after the repeal, however, drawn again into the thick of the fight, he made his great Peoria speech. In the same year, 1854, a Senator was to be elected by the legislature of Illinois, and there was an opportunity to send someone hostile to Douglas. The opponents of the Douglas faction included Whigs and Democrats and were not a thoroughly welded group. Lincoln, though he led in the early voting of the legislature, discerning that the new alignment against Douglas was not holding together and that a candidate favorable to slavery would be elected, withdrew and threw his strength to an anti-slavery candidate.1 : Lincoln-Douglas Debates, 1858 In this way he temporarily sacrificed his own am- bitions for the sake of the cause. His chance came four years later (1858) when the term of Douglas himself expired and the Republican State Convention selected Lincoln as their “ first and only choice ”’ for the United 1 Lincoln held out until the tenth ballot. XX1V Introduction States Senate. Meantime, a stupendous decision was handed down by the Supreme Court in the famous Dred Scott case (1857). Dred Scott, a slave, had been taken by his master into free territory and then carried back into the slave state of Missouri. He brought suit on the ground that his residence in free territory had made him a freeman. ‘The opinion of the Court was sweep- ing. It declared not only that Dred Scott was not free, but that the Missouri Compromise excluding slavery in the Louisiana Purchase north of 36° 30’, was in violation of the Constitution. The following year Lincoln faced Douglas in seven debates in Illinois, and the country looked on eagerly and excitedly. Never had such crowds gathered to hear a political discussion. The rivalry between these two men is one of the most dramatic of our history. They were in the Illinois legislature at the same time — Lincoln the leader of the minority, Douglas of the majority. They were suitors for the hand of the same young woman — here Lincoln was the victor. Physically, Lincoln was older, exceed- ingly tall, awkward, and retiring; Douglas was short, supple, aggressive. In speech Douglas was adroit and flexible, while Lincoln was blunt and dogged. Douglas rose rapidly to a judgeship, and the United States Senate. Lincoln, except for his one term in Congress, stayed in Illinois. When Douglas was fencing with Sumner, Chase, Seward, and Everett, Lincoln was driving homely argument into the heads of frontier jurymen. When the name of Douglas was on the lips of most people, North and South, Lincoln’s reputation had not reached to the borders of his own state. Par- Introduction XXV tisans of the slaveholders, growing more and more imperious with the decision just given in their favor, now looked to the “ Little Giant ’’ Douglas to stand forth as their leader and sustain the view that Congress could not interfere with slavery. Anxious friends of freedom looked at the gaunt figure of the Springfield lawyer and hoped that he would prove a worthy cham- pion for them. The outcome, though it resulted in the. election of Douglas, defined clearly Lincoln’s position and drove Douglas into a dilemma that cost him the presidency two years later. Lincoln’s Position Lincoln’s position was just this: he hated slavery as a great wrong, but he believed in the rights of the slave- holders under the Constitution; he held to the Mis- sour! Compromise principle of keeping slavery within a boundary ; he hoped and believed in the final extinc- tion of slavery in time; but most firmly he believed in preserving the Union as the greatest hope of all. On the other hand, Douglas had been put into a difficult place by the Dred Scott decision. He held, as we have already seen, that the people of a new state could decide whether slavery should be forbidden or not; but the Dred Scott decision declared that slavery could not be forbidden. Douglas’s talk of fitting in the Supreme Court decision and the popular sovereignty plan was like affirming, as Lincoln pointed out, that a thing could be legally driven away from a place where it had a legal right to be. Lincoln, on the contrary, held that the nation had to be all slave or all free. The question was which? XXV1 Introduction ““A House Divided ”’ This famous declaration of the house divided against itself, Lincoln made at the Republican Convention at Springfield in 1858 in a carefully prepared speech. Douglas answered in Chicago with the claim that ‘“‘ variety in all our local and domestic institutions is the great safeguard of our liberties.”” Then followed the joint debates in every Congressional district, except Springfield and Chicago. The climax came at Freeport when the candidates answered each other’s ques- tions. Lincoln again came out squarely for the right of Congress to prohibit slavery in the territories, and Douglas for the popular sovereignty idea and the Dred Scott decision. The debates did more than define the positions of the two men. Lincoln could no longer say “ scarcely anybody outside of Illinois knows me,” and his pre- diction that he would sink out of view and be forgotten, was wide of the mark. The immense crowds of men and women who flocked to hear the debates were only a small fraction of the masses who, day by day, read every word of the speeches. And while the superior grace and agility of Douglas were evident to the au- diences, the heat of a moral earnestness raised Lin- coln’s utterances to a new high plane. Douglas’s Position, the ‘‘ Freeport Doctrine ”’ Douglas soon found that his expedient of popular sovereignty mixed with the Dred Scott decision (the ‘‘ Freeport doctrine ’’) was unpalatable to the South. The Southerners had looked to him for something more Introduction XXV1l uncompromising. In a debate in the Senate Jefferson Davis made it quite clear to Douglas that what the South wanted was not non-intervention by Congress but protection from Congress. The South wanted more even than the Dred Scott decision ; it demanded not only that property in slaves be recognized like other property, but that slavery itself be accepted by the nation as right. Moreover, this Southern feeling was inflamed by John Brown’s raid in Virginia, which was regarded by many as the logical outcome of Lincoln’s idea of a ‘‘ house divided ” and Seward’s doctrine of ‘‘ an irrepressible conflict.”” The following Democratic Convention at Charleston split on this issue and scorn- fully rejected Douglas as a candidate. Lincoln at Cooper Union, February, 1860 .- Many prominent anti-slavery leaders in the North, on the contrary, found Lincoln’s idea of a ‘“ house divided ”’ and Seward’s idea of ‘‘an irrepressible conflict”’ (which, coming from a Senator, attracted far more attention than Lincoln’s) too radical. Influential newspapers like the New York Times, New York Tribune, and the Springfield Republican for instance, favored the Douglas idea. Nevertheless, Lincoln was invited to speak in Cooper Union in New York and there, on February 27, 1860, delivered one of his greatest addresses. Nominated for the Presidency, May, 1860 When the Republican Convention met at Chicago three months later, Seward was generally conceded to be the logical candidate. He had been Governor of —XXviii Introduction New York, and United States Senator. He had several times been the spokesman for the Whigs and Repub- licans, and his speeches were read by both North and South as the utterance of the foremost opponent of the slave power. He was backed by a powerful organ- ization under control of Thurlow Weed, and by great newspapers. Then there was Chase, also much better known than Lincoln. By one of those freaks of con- vention psychology, however, the tide for ‘“‘ the rail- splitter,’ began after the first ballot had showed that Seward’s strength had been overestimated. Amid a bedlam of delegates ‘‘ Honest Abe” was nominated to the bitter disappointment of Seward’s followers. ‘‘ Hundreds of men,” says an eye-witness, ‘‘ were so prostrated by the excitement they had en- dured, and their exertions in shrieking for Seward or Lincoln, that they were hardly able to walk to their hotels.” Much of the credit for the nomination is generally given to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, who, bitterly hostile to Seward, and left out of the New York delegation by the Seward party, secured a proxy from Oregon. ‘The nomination was a surprise and disappointment to most of the promi- nent anti-slavery people of the North. The opinion prevailed that an “ available’’ candidate had been thrust ahead of a man of unquestioned ability and dis- tinction. ‘‘ At this critical moment,” says Charnwood, “the fit man was chosen on the very ground of his unfitness.” Lincoln had still to reveal his simple greatness to the country; very few observers were keen enough to discern it at this time. Introduction XX1X Elected a Minority President, November, 1860 The Republican organization stood firmly behind their candidate in the ensuing election and Seward rendered noble service to his rival. Lincoln carried every free state except New Jersey and got 180 electoral votes to 12 for Douglas, and 72 for Breckinridge, who had been nominated by the Southern wing of the Democrats. The popular vote, however, showed Douglas very strong with 1,291,000 to Lincoln’s 1,857,- 000; and the combined vote of the two wings of the Democrats was almost 300,000 greater than Lincoln’s vote. Nevertheless, the North had come out squarely against the extension of slavery. The next President was the man who had declared that the nation must be all slave or all free; that ‘‘ a house divided against itself cannot stand.” It was a ringing challenge to the South. Secession The answer of the South came without hesitation. The legislature of South Carolina, in session when the election of Lincoln was announced, at once issued a call for a convention to consider secession. On De- cember 20 an ordinance “‘ to dissolve the Union between the State of South Carolina and other states united with her under the compact entitled ‘The Constitution of the United States’ ”’ was unanimously passed by this body. The states of Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, and Texas followed in December and January; and on February 4, delegates met in Montgomery, Alabama, and formed the Confederate States of America. XXX Introduction Matters were made more serious by the fact that in the interim of four months between his election and inauguration, the situation was in the hands of Presi- dent Buchanan, an old man, who was afraid to act with firmness lest he should have a war on his hands, and a Cabinet that contained several Southern sym- pathizers. A Congressional committee appointed to assuage the South failed to agree on a compromise. South Carolina made advances to take over government property including forts and customs houses. Mayor Anderson, in charge of the forts in Charleston harbor, concentrated his force in Fort Sumter on one of the islands to be in the best position for defense. Dix, Secretary of the Treasury, telegraphed to New Orleans, “Tf any man attempts to haul down the American flag, shoot him on the spot.’’ Almost anything might have happened between November, 1860, and March, 1861. The South was sobered by the prospect of secession, but inflamed by the idea of being forced to stay in the Union. Some of the slave states, including Virginia, had not yet followed the secessionists. Indeed, Lincoln hoped that Robert E. Lee would command the Federal forces in case of war and offered him the position. Neither was the North united. Horace Greeley, for example, was one of those who wanted to let the seceding states go their way in peace rather than have the Union ‘pinned together with bayonets.’”’ The utterances of Lincoln at this time reveal how solemnly he regarded the condition of the Union. ‘I turn, then,” he said, “to the American people and to that God who has never forsaken them.’ He hoped fervently that Introduction XXX] the armed struggle which seemed to some observers inevitable, could be averted. ‘‘ And I may say ‘in advance,” he declared, ‘‘ that there will be no blood- shed unless it be forced upon the government. The government will not use force unless force is used against it.” The Inaugural It was with the deepest feeling of the seriousness of the occasion, and an anxiety to allay the feverishness of the country that Lincoln delivered his inaugural address on March 4, 1861. The event was made dra- matic by the presence of his old Illinois rival, Douglas, _ who sat beside him, and his Republican rival, Seward. Chief Justice Roger Taney, who had handed down the Dred Scott decision, swore him in. For the most part the speech is a reiteration of what he had said again and again in various parts of the country. He was repeating it for the benefit of the South. He reminded his audience (and he was really speaking to the entire country) that he had been sworn to support the Constitution; that the laws, even the fugitive slave law, were to be carried out; that he saw no reason for, and hoped that there would be no use of, force. He closed with a paragraph of great beauty and dignity. When he took office Lincoln faced extraordinary difficulties — greater than any president before or since. ‘To begin with, the conflagration of civil war was ready for the striking of a match. Any rash move would supply the necessary spark. It was a time when great skill was needed in handling the nation’s affairs. XXX11 Introduction Lincoln had been lifted to the Presidency without train- ing in executive office. Seward had had such a training as Governor of New York; Chase, Secretary of the Treasury, had been Governor of Ohio. The Cabinet held some very able, but also some very incompetent, men; the President was inexperienced and as yet undiscovered. Further, the South had in Jefferson Davis a man of long public experience and extraordinary ability. Seward at this point, chafing at a policy of delay, and eager, no doubt, to secure ascendency, submitted less than a month after the inauguration a paper entitled Some Thoughts for the President’s Consideration. The paper outlined a complete domestic and foreign policy for the administration and suggested that ‘“ the Presi- dent must do it himself or devolve it upon some member of the Cabinet.’”’ Lincoln’s answer was pa- tient, without bitterness, and final. There was no further doubt in Seward’s mind as to who was Presi- dent; and from that time he gave ungrudgingly of his best effort to the head of the administration. Fort Sumter Fired Upon The next test of the new executive came speedily. On the very day of his inauguration, the Confederate flag was hoisted in Montgomery; and the aggression of South Carolina, begun in Buchanan’s term, had continued. Major Anderson was shut up in Fort Sumter without provisions. Lincoln, overruling the advice of Seward, decided to send supplies. He notified the Governor of the state that no men or ammunition would be sent unless resistance were offered. Hearing Introduction XXXIll this, the Confederate government ordered General Beauregard to demand the surrender of the Fort. Major Anderson refused, and the first shot of the war was fired. Lincoln answered the next day with a eall for 75,000 troops to suppress the rebellion. From one point of view, the four years that followed from the time the Northern troops were mobbed passing through Baltimore to the meeting of General Grant and General Lee at Appomattox, may be considered a military campaign. From this standpoint we see the ebb and flow of armies urged forward by the cry of “‘On to Richmond!” or ‘On to Washington!”? We see the high tide of the Confederate cause in Pickett’s charge at Gettysburg, and then the slow recession until the end. But from another point of view, the struggle is a great drama, and the protagonist is Abraham Lincoln. Difficulties That Lincoln Faced We have said that when Lincoln took office he was an untried and unknown force. Serious doubts about his measuring up to his task were felt and widely expressed by many prominent people. Little by little, however, mostly in unobtrusive ways, there emerged from the tumult a really great character. We see him even more clearly now revealed in the light of many careful studies of his work. The Cabinet But how can we measure his greatness? One way is to consider the labors and obstacles that confronted him. We have mentioned his Cabinet. Even in times of peace a President must have a Cabinet that will pull XXXIV Introduction together. But here was a war, tearing the very nation to shreds, and the President’s advisers were scattered in their opinions. Seward was ambitious, and often tactless. At a time when the utmost delicacy was needed to prevent England from recognizing the South, he wrote a letter that would have drawn her in against us. Lincoln changed the whole tone of the letter before it was sent. Chase, Secretary of the Treasury, never recovered from his disappointment at seeing Lincoln get the nomination in 1860. He began to angle for the nomination in 1864, and continued until he saw that the delegates from his own state would not support him. In spite of this, Lincoln kept him in the Cabinet because he felt that was the best way to serve the country. Chase and Seward were hostile to each other and at one time sent in their resignations together. Lincoln refused to let either go. There were other disappointments in the Cabinet, too. Lin- coln endured Cameron, his first Secretary of War, as long as he could; and then he appointed Stanton, who had made no secret of his contempt for the new Presi- dent, but who, Lincoln felt, had the ability needed to drive the department. The President endured the vanities of these men just as long as he felt they served the country. For himself, he never showed an exag- gerated sense of dignity; he thought only of the work he had sworn to do. The Generals And then there were the generals. Everybody wanted to be an officer ; most men wanted to be major- generals. Powerful friends of officers bombarded the Introduction XXXV President with demands for promotion until he re- minded one that generals’ commissions were “ not as plentiful as blackberries.’”’ Then again, several of the generals schemed for gigantic expeditions by which they would crush the rebellion ‘‘in a single blow ”’; but they used up so much energy in preparing and talk- ing about what they were going to do that they were a severe trial. Further, there was jealousy of the bitterest kind between commanders who should have had an eye upon only one thing — the destruction of Southern armies. Hooker did not codperate with McClellan; McClellan did not help Pope as much as he should have; Rose- crans and Halleck withheld opportunities from Grant. This feeling spread to the men, so that the appointment of a particular general often was the signal for wholesale desertions. Talk of a dictatorship unbalanced several of the officers, and they were led to issue proclamations of one kind or another in the districts they served, until Lincoln’s prompt revocation taught them to keep their balance. McClellan And finally, there was McClellan, the greatest trial of all the men in command. After the disaster of the first battle of Bull Run, Lincoln summoned McClellan from the West, where he had had much success, to reorganize and drill the army. No general in the Northern army was a greater genius at this than McClel- lan. He took the demoralized army that went to pieces at Bull Run and added to it the raw troops that kept pouring in as volunteers were called for. He marched XXXV1 Introduction them, drilled them, and equipped them. But he would not advance with them. He overestimated the enemy’s force, magnifying it to three times its actual size; he suspected people at Washington of trying to hamper him; he dreamed and wrote of ‘‘ saving the nation,” of a dictatorship; and he was unpardonably haughty to Lincoln. The latter, nevertheless, overlooked all of this; once, when McClellan snubbed him he re- marked, ‘‘ I should gladly hold his horse if only he will give us a victory.”? He suggested plans, he urged, he implored McClellan to advance. Not once, but several times, to everyone except the general, the Southern army seemed within easy grasp. But Mc- Clellan let it get away. He let Johnston evacuate Manassas; he let Lee escape across the Potomac after Antietam. The patience of Lincoln with him is one of the great chapters in American history. When McClellan refused to move, Lincoln remarked that he would “ borrow” the army from him; and finally, after the awful failure to seize his opportunity to destroy Lee at Antietam, Lincoln removed him. It was gen- erally known, too, that McClellan was courting the Democratic nomination for the Presidency, and it was as generally believed that he fought in a fashion to gain support of those who wished to let the South go its way. In spite of everything, however, Lincoln gave him the fullest measure of loyal codperation. Grant Among his generals, Lincoln supported everyone to the limit of his ability. However, he hailed the men who could not only plan a battle but fight the battle. Introduction | XXXV11 Not until General Grant showed these two qualities did Lincoln have any relief from the necessity of being Commander-in-Chief of the Army, as well as President. To Grant, he willingly gave a free hand. And when someone suggested that this General was ambitious for the Presidency, Lincoln’s remark was, “ If he takes Rich- mond, let him have the Presidency.” This largeness of vision is true of all we know about his dealing with his generals. It is an unmistakable evidence of greatness. Greeley and Congress Next among the problems, came the public men who knew just how Lincoln ought to do things, and said so. Horace Greeley, the editor of the New York Tribune, aman with a large following in the East, began almost at the start of Lincoln’s term to grumble, to criticize, to take a superior tone. Lincoln kept reading the Tribune to keep posted on Greeley’s latest dissatis- faction. His letter in answer to Greeley’s ‘‘ prayer of the twenty million ’”’ is an indication of his attitude toward such critics. Governors of states, like Gov- ernor Seymour of New York, had to be appeased. Even local politicians had to be soothed so that they would help send the quota of their state to the army. Congress, most of the time, kept up a constant carping at Lincoln, which he bore with infinite patience. As a grim joke upon one of the Congressmen, who exceeded his privilege of criticizing to the point where his words bordered on treason, Lincoln sent him to the Southern army. Elections in the state had to be watched, too, for every election that went against the administration made recruiting more difficult, XXXVI11 Introduction A Divided North Then the war was not as simple as a war against a foreign country. When it is a question of fighting against another nation, the President can count upon the ungrudging support of a united people. But the Civil War was different in many respects. There were, for example, some people who would fight for the Union but not for the negroes. General Rosecrans expressed this idea. There were others who objected to the use of force to preserve the Union. Greeley was one of these. There were others who objected to fighting unless the slaves were freed first. Then there was the question of how to treat states hke Kentucky — slave states that had not joined the Confederacy. They might turn against the Union at any time and thus change the front of war. Furthermore, there was the grave question of England’s attitude. The blockade of the Southern ports cut off the supply of raw cotton that had fed the mills of the big English manu- facturing towns. English workmen were thrown out of work and began to suffer want. Naturally English people began to think that the way out of their trouble was to help the South set up its own government. This sympathy for the Confederacy was greatly aug- mented when the Union officers seized Southern agents sailing on an English vessel. These were not by any means all of the burdens that the President had during the war. In 1862, when the Union cause seemed almost hopeless, another anxiety and sorrow came to Lincoln in the illness and death of his twelve year old son. Perhaps the duty Introduction XXX1X that weighed most upon him was that of reviewing cases of soldiers — mostly boys — who had been con- demned to death for desertion from the army. Scores of telegrams are on record to show with what limitless patience and tenderness he handled their cases. No one can look back upon the problems, the awful responsibilities of those four years without feeling impressed by the man who stood his ground and faced them. With forgetfulness of himself, without hatred, without vanity, but with a singleness and simplicity of purpose, he struggled forward to save the Union. Second Inaugural By the time his first term was drawing to a close, he felt so depressed that he frequently predicted that he would not be reélected. It was a great encouragement to him therefore to find that, despite even such signs as the draft riots, the North overwhelmingly desired him to remain the Chief. The words of his address at his second inaugural reach a plane rarely touched in state papers, seldom attained indeed, in literature. The dignity and strength of his, ‘‘ With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right’’ make this the supreme utterance of his life. Death The end we all know: how he was sitting in a box with Mrs. Lincoln in Ford’s Theatre in Washington on the night of April 14, 1865; how the crazed assassin entered, shot him in the back of the head and jumped to the stage; how the President was removed to a house across the street where he died in a few hours. xl Introduction He built the rail-pile as he built the State, Pouring his splendid strength through every blow; The grip that swung the ax in Illinois Was on the pen that set a people free. And when he fell in whirlwind, he went down As when a lordly cedar, green with boughs, Goes down with a great shout upon the hills And leaves a lonesome place against the sky.' 1 From Edwin Markham’s Lincoln, the Man of the People. LINCOLN ANDUD Ro Siebs\ HAUNT DE) BM PT None Announcement of Lincoln’s Candidacy for the Legislature The announcement which follows is of interest because it is the earliest political paper of Lincoln’s that we have. When he wrote it he was twenty-three years old. The principles he declares were those of the Whigs of his time. He was neither more nor less wise than the others in his ardent support of in- ternal improvement, — canals, particularly. The last sen- tence has the flavor of resignation that we find frequently in his later writings. See, for example, his letter to H. D. Sharpe, after his defeat by Douglas, December 8, 1858. [Written about March 1, 1832] FELLOW-CITIZENS: I presume you all know who I am. Iam humble Abraham Lincoln. I have been so- licited by many friends to become a candidate for the Legislature. My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman’s dance. I am in favor of a national bank. I am in favor of the internal improvement system, and a high protective tariff. These are my sentiments and political principles. If elected, I shall be thankful; if not, it will be all the same. A. LINCOLN 2 Abraham Lincoln From the Address to the People of Sangamon County This is from a more extended announcement during the same election. It is notable because of the statement ‘‘so soon as I discover my opinions to be erroneous I shall be ready to renounce them.’’ This principle was a corner stone of Lincoln’s growth. See his letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862; his letter to McClellan, February 3, 1862; and that to Grant, July 13, 1863. [March 9, 1832] But, fellow citizens, I shall conclude. Considering the great degree of modesty which should always attend youth, it is probable I have already been more pre- suming than becomes me. However, upon the subjects of which I have treated, I have spoken as I have thought. I may be wrong in regard to any or all of them; but, holding it a sound maxim that it is better only sometimes to be right than at all times to be wrong, so soon as I discover my opinions to be erroneous I shall be ready to renounce them. Every man is said to have his peculiar ambition. Whether it be true or not, I can say, for one, that I have no other so great as that of being truly esteemed of my fellow men by rendering myself worthy of their esteem. How far I shall succeed in gratifying this ambition is yet to be developed. I am young and unknown to many of you. I was born and have ever remained in the most humble walks of life. I have no wealthy or popular relations or friends to recommend me. My case is thrown exclusively upon the independent voters of the county, and if elected, they will have conferred a favor upon me for which I shall be unremitting in Addresses and Letters 3 my labors to compensate. But if the good people in their wisdom shall see fit to keep me in the background, I have been too familiar with disappointments to be very much chagrined. Your friend and fellow-citizen, A. LINCOLN Political Views in 1836 Lincoln was defeated for the legislature in 1832, but elected in 1834. He had already served a two year term therefore, and was a candidate to succeed himself when he wrote this. The letter is worth remembering for his willingness to ‘“‘show his hand,”’ a willingness that Lincoln very consistently had throughout his life. The second paragraph is one of the earliest indications of the woman suffrage movement in America. Horace Greeley, who later became one of Lincoln’s most powerful friends and still later one of his severest critics, was one of the first prominent men to advocate the cause. Note that Lincoln’s belief in internal improvements persists. He had visions of being the De Witt Clinton of Illinois. New Salem, June 13, 1836 To THE EpitTor oF THE Journal: In your paper of last Saturday I see a communication, over the signature of “Many Voters,” in which the candidates who are an- nounced in the Journal are called upon to ‘‘show their hands.” Agreed. Here’s mine. I go for all sharing the privileges of the government who assist in bearing its burdens. Consequently, I go for admitting all whites to the right of suffrage who pay taxes or bear arms (by no means excluding females). 4 | Abraham Lincoln If elected, I shall consider the whole people of Sanga- mon my constituents, as well those that oppose as those that support me. While acting as their representative, I shall be gov- erned by their will on all subjects upon which I have the means of knowing what their will is; and upon all others I shall do what my own judgment teaches me will best advance their interests. Whether elected or not, I go for distributing the proceeds of the sales of the public lands to the several states, ! to enable our state, in common with others, to dig canals and con- struct railroads without borrowing money and paying the interest on it. If alive on the first Monday in November, I shall vote for Hugh L. White for President.? Very respectfully A. LINCOLN Protest against Slavery This was called forth by the passage of a number of reso- lutions in the Illinois legislature, designed to allay the grow- ing fear of slave holders and to put a curb upon the activities of the Abolitionists. Other northern states were attempting in similar ways to hush the protests against slavery. This is Lineoln’s rebellion against the ‘‘gag’’ policy. A few months later Elijah Lovejoy was shot in Alton, about fifty miles from Springfield, for publishing an Abolitionist paper. It is worth noting as an indication of the feeling of the time that only one other member of the legislature signed Lin- coln’s protest. 1 These amounted to twenty-four million dollars in 1836. 2 White carried only two states. Addresses and Letters 5 [March 3, 1837] The following protest was presented to the House March 8, 1837, which was read and ordered to be spread on the journals, to wit: Resolutions upon the subject of domestic slavery hav- ing passed both branches of the General Assembly at its present session, the undersigned hereby protest - against the passage of the same. They believe that the institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy, but that the promul- gation of abolition doctrines tends rather to increase than abate its evils. They believe that the Congress of the United States has no power under the Constitution to interfere with the institution of slavery in the different states. They believe that the Congress of the United States has the power, under the Constitution, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, but that the power ought not to be exercised, unless at the request of the people of the District. The difference between these opinions and those con- tained in the said resolutions is their reason for entering this protest. Dan STONE, A. LINCOLN, Representatives from the County of Sangamon. Letters to His Law Partner William H. Herndon The law firm of Lincoln and Herndon was formed in 1845 and continued until Lincoln’s death. Herndon, who is the chief authority for the details of Lincoln’s early life, was ten 6 Abraham Lincoln years younger than his partner. Lincoln at this time was serving his one (and only) term in Congress. He met many of the most talked of men of the day, including ‘‘ Mr. Stephens of Georgia,’ afterwards vice-president of the Confederacy. Washington, February 2, 1848 Dear WiuiAM: I just take my pen to say that Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, a little, slim, pale-faced, con- sumptive man, with a voice like Logan’s, has just con- cluded the very best speech of an hour’s length I ever heard. My old withered dry eyes are full of tears yet. If he writes it out anything like he delivered it, our people shall see a good many copies of it. Yours truly, A. LINCOLN After Lincoln had become president he had more than one occasion to write letters like the following to his generals. See the letter to General Hunter, December 31, 1861. Washington, July 10, 1848 Dear WiuutAm: Your letter covering the newspaper slips was received last night. The subject of that letter is exceedingly painful to me; and I cannot but think there is some mistake in your impression of the motives of the old men. I suppose I am now one of the old men; and I declare, on my veracity, which I think is good with you, that nothing could afford me more satis- faction than to learn that you and others of my young friends at home are doing battle in the contest, and en- dearing themselves to the people, and taking a stand far above any I have ever been able to reach in their ad- Addresses and Letters 7 miration. I cannot conceive that other old men feel differently. Of course I cannot demonstrate what I say; but I was young once, and I am sure I was never ungenerously thrust back. I hardly know what to say. The way for a young man to rise is to improve himself every way he can, never suspecting that anybody wishes to hinder him. Allow me to assure you that suspicion and jealousy never did help any man in any situation. There may sometimes be ungenerous attempts to keep a young man down; and they will succeed, too, if he allows his mind to be diverted from its true channel to brood over the attempted injury. Cast about, and see if this feeling has not injured every person you have ever known to fall into it. Now, in what I have said, I am sure you will suspect nothing but sincere friendship. I would save you from a fatal error. You have been a laborious, studious young man. You are far better informed on almost all subjects than I have ever been. You cannot fail in any laudable object, unless you allow your mind to be improperly directed. I have somewhat the advan- tage of you in the world’s experience, merely by being older; and it is this that induces me to advise. Your friend, as ever, A. LINCOLN Letters to John D. Johnston This Johnston was a son of Lincoln’s stepmother, Sarah Bush Johnston, by her first marriage. Though Lincoln had a real affection for his stepbrother, he had an accurate esti- mate of Johnston’s shiftlessness. His attitude toward his stepmother in these letters is worth notice. 8 Abraham Lincoln January 2, 1851 Dear JoHNSTON: Your request for eighty dollars I do not think best to comply with now. At the various times when I have helped you a little you have said to me, ‘‘ We can get along very well now’’; but in a very short time I find you in the same difficulty again. Now this can only happen by some defect in your conduct. What that defect is, I think I know. You are not lazy, and still you are an idler. I doubt whether, since I saw you, you have done a good whole day’s work in any one day. You do not very much dislike to work, and still you do not work much, merely because it does not seem to you that you could get much for it. This habit of uselessly wasting time is the whole difficulty ; it is vastly important to you, and still more so to your children, that you should break the habit. It is more important to them, because they have longer to live, and can keep out of an idle habit before they are in it, easier than they can get out after they are in. You are now in need of some money; and what I propose is, that you shall go to work, “tooth and nail,” for somebody who will give you money for it. Let father and your boys take charge of your things at home, prepare for a crop, and make the crop, and you go to work for the best money wages, or in discharge of any debt you owe, that you can get; and to secure you a fair reward for your labor, I now promise you, that for every dollar that you will, between this and the first of May, get for your own labor, either in money or as your own indebtedness, I will then give you one other dollar. By this, if you hire yourself at ten dollars a month, from me you will get ten more, making twenty Addresses and Letters 9 dollars a month for your work. In this I do not mean you shall go off to St. Louis, or the lead mines, or the gold mines in California, but I mean for you to go at it for the best wages you can get close to home in Coles County. Now, if you will do this, you will soon be out of debt, and, what is better, you will have a habit that will keep you from getting in debt again. But if I should now clear you out of debt, next year you would be just as deep in as ever. You say you would almost give your place in heaven for seventy or eighty dollars. Then you value your place in heaven very cheap, for I am sure you can, with the offer I make, get the seventy or eighty dollars for four or five months’ work. You say if I will furnish you the money you will deed me the land, and, if you don’t pay the money back, you will deliver possession. Nonsense! If you can’t now live with the land, how will you then live without it? You have always been kind to me, and I do not mean to be unkind to you. On the contrary, if you will but follow my advice, you will find it worth more than eighty times eighty dollars to you. Affectionately your brother, A. LINCOLN Shelbyville, November 4, 1851 Dear BrotHEerR: When I came into Charleston day before yesterday, I learned that you are anxious to sell the land where you live and move to Missouri. I have been thinking of this ever since, and cannot but think such a notion utterly foolish. What can you doin Missouri better than here? Is the land any richer? IO Abraham Lincoln Can you there, any more than here, raise corn and wheat and oats without work? Will anybody there, any more than here, do your work for you? If you in- tend to go to work, there is no better place than right where you are; if you do not intend to go to work, you cannot get along anywhere. Squirming and crawling about from place to place can do no good. You have raised no crop this year; and what you really want is to sell the land, get the money, and spend it. Part with the land you have, and, my life upon it, you will never after own a spot big enough to bury youin. Half you will get for the land you will spend in moving to Mis- sourl, and the other half you will eat, drink, and wear out, and no foot of land will be bought. Now, I feel it my duty to have no hand in such a piece of foolery. I feel that it is so even on your own account, and partic- ularly on mother’s account. The eastern forty acres I intend to keep for mother while she lives; if you will not cultivate it, it will rent for enough to support her —at least, it will rent for something. Her dower in the other two forties she can let you have, and no thanks to me. Now, do not misunderstand this letter; I do not write it in any unkindness. I write it in order, if possible, to get you to face the truth, which truth is, you are destitute because you have idled away all your time. Your thousand pretenses for not getting along better are all nonsense; they deceive nobody but your- self. Go to work is the only cure for your case. A word to mother. Chapman tells me he wants you to go and live with him.’ If I were you I would try it awhile. If you get tired of it (as I think you will not), ~ you can return to your own home. Chapman feels very ‘HOVIdHLYIG, S.NTOONT'T bate UE Nant oz MEP eo ye 7 rea hs ; => - ‘} , ‘ in ~~ % , Che ; . = LIBRARY a UNIVERSITY OF HLLINCIS. URBANA | - ; =~ . hoe SS eS Ee J "ie ™ or ~ Ne oe are > nae rae Ae awe) sega cs — Addresses and Letters II kindly to you, and I have no doubt he will make your situation very pleasant. Sincerely your son, A. LINCOLN Springfield, November 25, 1851 John D. Johnston. Dear Brotuer: Your letter of the 22d is just re- ceived. Your proposal about selling the east forty acres of land is all that I want or could want for myself; but I am not satisfied with it on mother’s account — I want her to have her living, and I feel that it is my duty, to some extent, to see that she is not wronged. She had a right of dower (that is, the use of one-third for life) in the other two forties! but, it seems, she has already let you take that, hook and line. She now has the use of the whole east forty, as long as she lives; and if it be sold, of course, she is entitled to the interest on all the money it brings, as long as she lives; but you propose to sell it for three hundred dollars, take one hundred away with you, and leave her two hundred at 8 per cent, making her the enormous sum of 16 dollars a year. Now, if you are satisfied with treating her in that way, Iam not. It is true, that you are to have that forty for two hundred dollars, at your mother’s death; but you are not to have it before. I am confident that land can be made to produce for mother at least $30 a year, -andI cannot, to oblige any living person, consent that she shall be put on an allowance of sixteen dollars a year. Yours, etc., A. LINCOLN 12 Abraham Lincoln The Peoria Speech It was now a little more than four months since the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill had aroused the nation and alarmed the North. Immediately upon his return from Washington Douglas pitched into the fight in his own state to win back the support he had lost. At the state fair at Springfield, October 3, he was featured as the chief speaker. When he had finished, the crowd ealled for Lincoln to an- swer him, which he did on the following day. Two weeks later the men met again on the same platform at Peoria and Lincoln delivered this speech. At Douglas’s request the joint meetings were then discontinued. They were, in effect, rehearsals for the great debates of four years later. Aroused by the Kansas-Nebraska bill, Lincoln in 1854 became a ecan- didate for the legislature, and as a new United States Senator was to be chosen, the fight assumed great importance. The election resulted in a defeat for the Douglas party, but his opponents were as yet so unorganized (the Whig party was breaking up, and the Republican had not been formed) that a deadlock resulted in the voting in the legislature. By eliminating himself, Lincoln broke the deadlock, and opened the way for the election of an anti-Douglas Democrat, Ly- man Trumbull. [October 16, 1854] I do not rise to speak now, if I can stipulate with the audience to meet me here at half-past six or at seven o’clock. It is now several minutes past five, and Judge Douglas has spoken over three hours. If you hear me at all, I wish you to hear me through. It will take me as long as it has taken him. That will carry us beyond eight o’clock at night. Now, everyone of you who can remain that long can just as well get his supper, meet me at seven, and remain an hour or two later. The Judge has already informed you that he is to have an Addresses and Letters 13 hour to reply to me. I doubt not but you have been a little surprised to learn that I have consented to give one of his high reputation and known ability this ad- vantage of me. Indeed, my consenting to it, though reluctant, was not wholly unselfish, for I suspected, if it were understood that the Judge was entirely done, you Democrats would leave and not hear me; but by giving him the close I felt confident you would stay for the fun of hearing him skin me. [The audience signified their assent to the arrange- ment, and adjourned to seven o’clock p.m., at which time they reassembled, and Mr. Lincoln spoke sub- stantially as follows :| The repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and the propriety of its restoration, constitute the subject of what Iam about to say. AsI desire to present my own connected view of this subject, my remarks will not be specifically an answer to Judge Douglas; yet, as I pro- ceed, the main points he has presented will arise, and will receive such respectful attention as I may be able to give them. I wish further to say that I do not pro- pose to question the patriotism or to assail the motives of any man or class of men, but rather to confine my- self strictly to the naked merits of the question. I also wish to be no less than national in all the positions I may take, and whenever I take ground which others have thought, or may think, narrow, sectional, and dangerous to the union, I hope to give a reason which will appear sufficient, at least to some, why I think dif- ferently. | And as this subject is no other than part and parcel of the larger general question of domestic slavery, I wish 14 Abraham Lincoln to make and keep the distinction between the existing institution and the extension of it, so broad and so clear that no honest man can misunderstand me, and no dis- honest one successfully misrepresent me. Before proceeding let me say that I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people.! They are just what we would be in their situation. If 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 believe 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 Southern men do free their slaves, go North and become tiptop abolition- ists, while some Northern ones go South and become most cruel slave masters. - When Southern people tell us they are no more re- sponsible for the origin of slavery than we are, I ac- knowledge the fact. When it is said that the institu- tion exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it in any satisfactory way, I can understand 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 reflection would convince me that whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this in the long run, its 1 Read the First Inaugural (p. 142). Addresses and Letters is 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 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 betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery at any rate, yet the point is not clear enough for 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 whites will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice 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 disregarded. We cannot then make them equals. 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 legislation 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 one great argument in support of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise is still to come. That argu- ment is “the sacred right of self-government.” It seems our distinguished senator has found great diffi- culty in getting his antagonists, even in the Senate, to 16 Abraham Lincoln meet him fairly on this argument. Some poet has said — “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” At a hazard of being thought one of the fools of this quotation, I meet that argument — I rush in — I take that bull by the horns. I trust I understand and truly estimate the right of self-government. My faith in the proposition that each man should do precisely as he » pleases with all which is exclusively his own lies at the foundation of the sense of justice there isin me. I ex- tend the principle to communities of men as well as to individuals. Iso extend it because it is politically wise, as well as naturally just: politically wise in saving us from broils about matters which do not concern us. Here, or at Washington, I would not trouble myself with the oyster laws of Virginia, or the cranberry laws of Indiana. The doctrine of self-government is right — absolutely and eternally right — but it has no just ap- plication as here attempted. Or perhaps I should rather say that whether it has such application depends upon whether a negro is not or is a man. If he is not a man, in that case he who is a man may as a matter of self-government do just what he pleases with him.! But if the negro is a man, is it not to that extent a total destruction of self-government to say that he too shall not govern himself? When the white man governs himself, that is self-government; but when he governs himself and also governs another man, that is more than self-government — that is despotism. If the negro is a 1 Chief Justice Taney, in his Dred Scott decision (March 6, 1857), held substantially this view. Addresses and Letters 17 man, why thenmy ancient faith teaches me that ‘‘all men are created equal,” and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man’s making a slave of another. Judge Douglas frequently, with bitter irony and sar- casm, paraphrases our argument by saying: “The white people of Nebraska are good enough to govern themselves, but they are not good enough to govern a few miserable negroes !’’ Well! I doubt not that the people of Nebraska are and will continue to be as good as the average of people elsewhere. I do not say the contrary. What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: ! “We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their gust powers from the consent of the governed.”’ I have quoted so much at this time merely to show that, according to our ancient faith, the just powers of governments are derived from the consent of the gov- erned. Now the relation of master and slave is pro tanto,? a total violation of this principle. The master not only governs the slave without his consent, but he 1 Note how this idea is developed in the Gettysburg Address (p. 202). 2 By so much. r 18 Abraham Lincoln governs him by a set of rules altogether different from those which he prescribes for himself. Allow all the governed an equal voice in the government, and that, and that only, is self-government. Let it not be said I am contending for the establish- ment of political and social equality between the whites and blacks. I have already said the contrary. I am not combating the argument of necessity, arising from the fact that the blacks are already among us; but Iam combating what is set up as moral argument for allow- ing them to be taken where they have never yet been — arguing against the extension of a bad thing, which, where it already exists, we must of necessity manage as we best can. In support of his application of the doctrine of self- government, Senator Douglas has sought to bring to his aid the opinions and examples of our Revolutionary fathers. I am glad he has done this. I love the senti- ments of those old-time men, and shall be most happy to abide by their opinions. He shows us that when it was in contemplation for the colonies to break off from Great Britain, and set up a new government for them- selves, several of the states instructed their delegates to go for the measure, provided each state should be al- lowed to regulate its domestic concerns in its own way. 1 do not quote; but thisin substance. This was right ; I see nothing objectionable in it. I also think it prob- able that it had some reference to the existence of slavery among them. I will not deny that it had. But had it any reference to the carrying of slavery into new countries? That is the question, and we will let the fathers themselves answer it. Addresses and Letters 19 This same generation of men, and mostly the same individuals of the generation who declared this principle, who declared independence, who fought the War of the Revolution through, who afterward made the Constitu- tion under which we still live — these same men passed the Ordinance of ’87, declaring that slavery should never go to the Northwest Territory. I have no doubt Judge Douglas thinks they were very inconsistent in this. It is a question of discrimination between them and him. But there is not an inch of ground left for his claiming that their opinions, their example, their authority, are on his side in the controversy. Some men, mostly Whigs, who condemn the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, nevertheless hesitate to go for its restoration, lest they be thrown in company with the Abolitionists. Will they allow me, as an old Whig, to tell them, good-humoredly, that I think this is very silly? Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong. Stand with the Abolitionist in restoring the Missouri Compromise, and stand against him when he attempts to repeal the fugitive-slave law. In the latter case you stand with the Southern disunionist. What of that? You are still right. In both cases you are right. In both cases you expose the dangerous ex- tremes. In both you stand on middle ground, and hold the ship level and steady. In both you are na- tional, and nothing less than national. This is the good old Whig ground.! To desert such ground be- 1 Lincoln wanted to prevent any attempt to class him with the Abolitionists. 20 Abraham Lincoln cause of any company, is to be less than a Whig — less than a man — less than an American. I particularly object to the new position which the avowed principle of this Nebraska law gives to slavery in the body politic. I object to it because it assumes that there can be moral right in the enslaving of one man by another. I object to it as a dangerous dalliance for a free people — a sad evidence that, feeling pros- perity, we forget right; that liberty, as a principle, we have ceased to revere. I object to it because the fathers of the republic eschewed and rejected it. The argu- ment of ‘‘necessity’’ was the only argument they ever admitted in favor of slavery; and so far, and so far only, as it carried them did it ever go. They found the institution existing among us, which they could not help, and they cast blame upon the British king for having permitted its introduction. Before the Con- stitution they prohibited its introduction into the Northwestern Territory, the only country we owned then free from it. At the framing and adoption of the Constitution, they forbore to so much as mention the word ‘‘slave”’ or ‘“‘slavery’’ in the whole instrument. In the provision for the recovery of fugitives, the slave is spoken of as a “person held in service or labor.”’ In that prohibiting the abolition of the African slave-trade for twenty years, that trade is spoken of as “the migra- tion or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit,” etc. These are the only provisions alluding to slavery. Thus the thing is hid away in the Constitution, just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or cancer which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death — with the promise, Addresses and Letters 21 nevertheless, that the cutting may begin at a certain time. Less than this our fathers could not do, and more they would not do. Necessity drove them so far, and further they would not go. But this is not all. The earliest Congress under the Constitution took the same view of slavery. They hedged and hemmed it in to the narrowest limits of necessity.1 But Nebraska is urged as a great Union-saving measure. Well, I too go for saving the Union. Much as I hate slavery, I would consent to the extension of it rather than see the Union dissolved, just as I would consent to any great evil to avoid a greater one.?, But when I go to Union-saving, I must believe, at least, that the means I employ have some adaptation to the end. To my mind, Nebraska has no such adaptation. “Tt hath no relish of salvation in it.”’ It is an aggravation, rather, of the only one thing which ever endangers the Union. When it came upon us, all was peace and quiet. The nation was looking to the forming of new bonds of union, and a long course of peace and prosperity seemed to lie before us. In the whole range of possibility, there scarcely appears to me to have been anything out of which the slavery agi- tation could have been revived, except the very project of repealing the Missouri Compromise. Every inch of territory we owned already had a definite settlement of the slavery question, by which all parties were pledged to abide. Indeed, there was no uninhabited country 1 He develops this in his Cooper Union Address (p. 109). 2 See letter to Horace Greeley (p. 168). 22 Abraham Lincoln on the continent which we could acquire, if we except some extreme northern regions which are wholly out of the question. In this state of affairs the Genius of Discord himself could scarcely have invented a way of again setting us by the ears but by turning back and destroying the peace measures of the past. The counsels of that Gen- ius seem to have prevailed. The Missouri Compromise was repealed; and here we are in the midst of a new slavery agitation, such, I think, as we have never seen before. Who is responsible for this? Is it those who resist the measure, or those who causelessly brought it forward and pressed it through, having reason to know, and in fact knowing it, it must and would be resisted ? It could not but be expected by its author that it would be looked upon as a measure for the extension of slavery, aggravated by a gross breach of faith. Argue as you will and long as you will, this is the naked front and aspect of the measure. And in this aspect it could not but produce agitation. Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man’s nature — opposition to it in his love of justice. These principles are an eternal antagonism, and when brought into collision so fiercely as slavery extension brings them, shocks and throes and convulsions must ceaselessly follow.' Re- peal the Missouri Compromise, repeal all compromises, repeal the Declaration of Independence, repeal all past history, you still cannot repeal human nature. It still will be the abundance of man’s heart that slavery ex- 1 Note that this idea is developed in the speech at the Republican Convention, Springfield, June 16, 1858 (p. 26). Addresses and Letters 23 tension is wrong, and out of the abundance of his heart his mouth will continue to speak.! But now it is to be transformed into a “sacred right.” Nebraska brings it forth, places it on the highroad to extension and perpetuity, and with a pat on its back says to it, ‘Go, and God speed you.” Henceforth it is to be the chief jewel of the nation — the very figure- head of the Ship of State. Little by little, but steadily as man’s march to the grave, we have been giving up the old for the new faith. Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for some men to enslave others is a “sacred right of self-government.’’ These principles cannot stand together. They are as opposite as God and Mammon; and whoever holds to the one must de- spise the other.? Finally, the Judge invokes against me the memory of Clay and Webster. They were great men, and men of great deeds. But where have I assailed them? For what is it that their lifelong enemy shall now make profit by assuming to defend them against me, their lifelong friend? I go against the repeal of the Missouri Compromise; did they ever go for it? They went for the compromises of 1850; did I ever go against them? They were greatly devoted to the Union; to the small measure of my ability was I ever less so? Clay and 1 See Matthew, xii, 33-35: Luke, vi, 43-45. 2 The germ of his Springfield Convention Speech. 24 Abraham Lincoln Webster were dead before this question arose; by what authority shall our senator say they would espouse his side of it if alive? Mr. Clay was the leading spirit in making the Missouri Compromise; is it very credible that if now alive he would take the lead in the breaking of it? The truth is that some support from Whigs is now a necessity with the Judge, and for this it is that the names of Clay and Webster are invoked. His old friends have deserted him in such numbers as to leave too few to live by. He came to his own, and his own received him not; and lo! he turns unto the Gentiles. Letter to George Robertson The question which Lincoln asks in the last paragraph of this letter is one that was forcing itself upon him (see Peoria speech, p. 12) until he burst out with it in his Springfield ‘‘house-divided”’ address. Robertson, a prominent Ken- tuckian, had been a member of Congress, and Chief Justice of his own state. Springfield, Ill., August 15, 1855 Hon. George Robertson, Lexington, Kentucky. My pear Sir: The volume you left for me has been received. IJ am really grateful for the honor of your kind remembrance, as well as for the book. The partial reading I have already given it has afforded me much of both pleasure and instruction. It was new to me that the exact question which led to the Missouri Com- promise had arisen before it arose in regard to Missouri, and that you had taken so prominent a part in it. Your short but able and patriotic speech upon that occasion has not been improved upon since by those Addresses and Letters 25 holding the same views, and with all the lights you then had, the views you took appear to me as very reason- able. You are not a friend of slavery in the abstract. In that speech you spoke of “the peaceful extinction of slavery’? and used other expressions indicating your belief that the thing was, at some time, to have an end. Since then we have had thirty-six years of experience ; and this experience has demonstrated, I think, that there is no peaceful extinction of slavery in prospect for us. The signal failure of Henry Clay and other good and great men, in 1849, to effect anything in favor of gradual emancipation in Kentucky, together with a thousand other signs, extinguished that hope utterly. On the question of liberty, as a principle, we are not what we have been. When we were the political slaves of King George, and wanted to be free, we called the maxim that “‘all men are created equal”’ a self-evident truth, but now when we have grown fat, and have lost all dread of being slaves ourselves, we have become so greedy to be masters that we call the same maxim “a self-evident le.’? The Fourth of July has not quite dwindled away; it is still a great day — for burning fire-crackers ! That spirit which desired the peaceful extinction of slavery has itself become extinct with the occasion and the men of the Revolution. Under the impulse of that occasion, nearly half the states adopted systems of emancipation at once, and it is a significant fact that not a single state has done the like since. So far as peaceful, voluntary emancipation is concerned, the con- dition of the negro slave in America, scarcely less ter- 26 Abraham Lincoln rible to the contemplation of a free mind, is now as fixed and hopeless of change for the better as that of the lost souls of the finally impenitent. The Autocrat of all the Russias will resign his crown and proclaim his subjects free Republicans, sooner than will our Ameri- can masters voluntarily give up their slaves. Our political problem now is, “Can we as a nation continue together permanently — forever — half slave, and half free?’”’ The problem is too mighty for me — may God in his mercy superintend the solution. Your much obliged friend, and humble servant, A. LINCOLN Speech at the Republican State Convention, Springfield Once aroused, Lincoln continued to take an active part in the fight in Illinois. In the presidential campaign of 1856 he was a leader in the fight waged by the newly formed Re- publican party, and delivered more than fifty speeches in support of Frémont. When, therefore, the time came for selecting an adversary to dislodge Douglas from his seat in the United States Senate, Lincoln was the logical choice of the Republicans. The convention made its “first and only choice”’ on the afternoon of June 16, and that evening Lin- coln accepted the nomination in this speech. Knowing from experience that he would be misquoted, he departed from his usual custom and wrote out the entire address. Before delivering it he read it to a number of friends and was warned against using the ‘‘house-divided’’ idea. His law partner, Herndon, an Abolitionist, was the only one who approved. ‘*No words could be more unpopular,’’ says one biographer, “‘than the divided house could not stand. Writers and speakers fell upon the fateful paragraph and tore it savagely.” A month later Lincoln challenged Douglas to debate. ‘)'q ‘NOLONIHSVM “IVINONG] NIOONIT “buyng pun sr11io0H fig 1br.kdog ra LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF ILLihe: URBANA Addresses and Letters 37 [June 16, 1858] Mr. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN OF THE CONVEN- TION: If we could first know where we are and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy! was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. ‘A house divided ? against itself cannot stand.’ I believe this government cannot en- dure permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved, — I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the be- lief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction ; or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South. Have we no tendency to the latter condition? Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination — piece of machin- ery, so to speak — compounded of the Nebraska doc- trine and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; but also let him study the history 1 The Kansas-Nebraska bill was passed on March 30, 1854. 2 Matthew xii, 22-26. 28 Abraham Lincoln of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design and concert of action among its chief architects from the beginning. The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the States by State constitutions, and from most of the national territory by congressional prohibition. Four days later 1! commenced the struggle which ended in repealing that congressional prohibi- tion. This opened all the national territory to slavery, and was the first point gained. But so far, Congress only had acted; and an indorse- ment by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable to save the point already gained and give chance for more. This necessity had not been overlooked, but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argu- ment of Squatter Sovereignty, otherwise called sacred right of self-government, which latter phrase, though ex- pressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it, as to amount to just this: That if any one man choose to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to ob- ject. That argument was incorporated into the Ne- braska bill itself, in the language which follows: “It being the true intent and meaning of this act, not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to ex- clude it therefrom; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic insti- tutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitu- tion of the United States.” Then opened the roar of 1 Douglas introduced the original Nebraska bill on January 4, 1854. Addresses and Letters 29 loose declamation in favor of Squatter Sovereignty and sacred right of self-government. “But,” said opposition members, ‘‘let us amend the bill so as to expressly de- clare that the people of the Territory may exclude slavery.” ‘Not we,” said the friends of the measure, and down they voted the amendment. While the Nebraska bill was passing through Con- gress, a law case, involving the question of a negro’s freedom, by reason of his owner having voluntarily taken him first into a free State and then into a Ter- ritory covered by the congressional prohibition, and held him as a slave for a long time in each, was passing through the United States Circuit Court for the Dis- trict of Missour1; and both Nebraska bill and lawsuit were brought to a decision, in the same month of May, 1854. The negro’s name was ‘Dred Scott,” which name now designates the decision finally rendered in the case. Before the then next presidential election, the law case came to, and was argued in, the Supreme Court of the United States; but the decision of it was deferred until after the election. Still, before the elec- tion, Senator Trumbull, ! on the floor of the Senate, re- quested the leading advocate of the Nebraska bill to state his opinion whether the people of a Terrritory can constitutionally exclude slavery from their limits, and the latter answers: “That is a question for the Supreme Court.” The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the indorsement, such as it was, secured. That was the second point gained. The indorsement, however, fell 1The Anti-Douglas Democrat from Illinois for whom Lincoln had stepped aside in 1854. (See introduction.) 30 Abraham Lincoln short ! of a clear popular majority by nearly four hun- dred thousand votes, and so, perhaps, was not over- whelmingly reliable and satisfactory. The outgoing President, in his last annual message, as impressively as possible echoed back upon the people the weight and authority of the indorsement. The Supreme Court met again; did not announce their decision, but ordered a reargument. The presidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the Court; but the incoming Presi- dent in his inaugural address fervently exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming decision, what- ever it might be. Then, in a few days, came the decision. The reputed author of the Nebraska bill finds an early occasion to make a speech at this capitol, indorsing the Dred Scott decision, and vehemently denouncing all ‘opposition to it. The new President, too, seizes the early occasion of the Silliman letter? to indorse and strongly construe that decision, and to express his astonishment that any different view had ever been entertained ! At length a squabble springs up between the Presi- dent and the author of the Nebraska bill, on the mere question of fact whether the Lecompton constitution was, or was not, in any just sense, made by the people of Kansas; and in that quarrel, the latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up. 1 President Buchanan’s vote was less than the combined vote of the Republicans and Know-Nothings. 2 Addressed to President Buchanan by Professor Silliman (of Yale) and others, upon the condition of Kansas. Addresses and Letters 31 I do not understand his declaration that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up, to be in- tended by him other than as an apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the public mind, — the principle for which he declares he has suffered so much, and is ready to suffer to the end. And well may he cling to that principle. If he has any parental feeling, well may he cling to it. That principle is the only shred left of his original Nebraska doctrine. Under the Dred Scott decision, ‘“‘squatter sovereignty”? squatted out of existence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding ; _ hike the mould at the foundry, it served through one blast, and fell back into loose sand, — helped to carry an election, and then was kicked to the winds. His late joint struggle with the Republicans against the Le- compton constitution involves nothing of the original Nebraska doctrine. That struggle was made on a point — the right of the people to make their own con- stitution — upon which he and the Republicans have never differed. The several points of the Dred Scott decision in con- nection with Senator Douglas’s “care not’’ policy, con- stitute the piece of machinery in its present state of advancement. This was the third point gained. The working points of that machinery are: First. That no negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and no descendant of such slave, can ever be a citizen of any State, in the sense of that term as used in the Constitution of the United States. This point is made in order to deprive the negro, in every possible event, of the benefit of that provision of the United States Constitution which declares that ‘the citizens of 32 Abraham Lincoln each State shall be entitled to all privileges and im- munities of citizens in the several States.” Secondly. That ‘subject to the Constitution of the United States,” neither Congress nor a territorial legis- lature can exclude slavery from any United States Territory. This point is made in order that individual men may fill up the Territories with slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and thus enhance the chances of permanency to the institution through all the future. Thirdly. That whether the holding a negro in actual slavery in a free State makes him free as against the holder, the United States Courts will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave State the negro may be forced into by the master. This point is made, not to be pressed immediately ; but if acquiesced in for a while, and apparently indorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logical con- clusion that what Dred Scott’s master might lawfully do with Dred Scott in the free State of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do, with any other one, or one thousand slaves in Illinois, or in any other free State. Auxiliary to all this, and working hand-in-hand with it, the Nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mould public opinion not to care whether slavery is voted down or voted up. This shows ex- actly where we now are, and partially, also, whither we are tending. It will throw additional light on the latter, to go back, and run the mind over the string of historical facts al- ready stated. Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were trans- Addresses and Letters 33 piring. The people were to be left ‘perfectly free,”’ “subject only to the Constitution.” What the Con- stitution had to do with it, outsiders could not then see. Plainly enough now: it was an exactly fitted niche for the Dred Scott decision to afterwards come in, and declare the perfect freedom of the people to be just no freedom at all. Why was the amendment expressly declaring the right of the people voted down? Plainly enough now: the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision. Why was the Court decision held up? Why even a Senator’s individual opinion withheld till after the presidential election? Plainly enough now: the speaking out then would have damaged the perfectly free argument upon which the election was to be carried. Why was the outgoing Presi- dent’s! felicitation on the indorsement? Why the delay of areargument? Why the incoming President’s? advance exhortation in favor of the decision? These things look like the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse, preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. And why the hasty after-indorsement of the decision by the President and others? We cannot absolutely know that all these adapta- tions are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places, and by different workmen — Stephen, Frank- lin, ? Roger, and James, for instance — and when we 1 Pierce. 2 Buchanan. 3 Stephen A. Douglas, Franklin Pierce, Roger Taney, and James Buchanan. 34 Abraham Lincoln see those timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and propor- tions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, not omitting even scaffolding — or if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in — in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one an- other from the beginning, and all worked upon a com- mon plan or draft, drawn up before the first blow was struck. It should not be overlooked that by the Nebraska bill the people of a State as well as Territory were to be left “perfectly free,” ‘subject only to the Constitu- tion.” Why mention a State? They were legislating for Territories, and not for or about States. Certainly the people of a State are and ought to be subject to the Constitution of the United States; but why is mention of this lugged into this merely territorial law? Why are the people of a Territory and the people of a State therein lumped together, and their relation to the Con- stitution therein treated as being precisely the same? While the opinion of the Court by Chief Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott case, and the separate opinions of all the concurring judges, expressly declare that the Con- stitution of the United States neither permits Congress nor a territorial legislature to exclude slavery from any United States Territory, they all omit to declare whether or not the same Constitution permits a State or the people of a State to exclude it. Possibly this is a mere Addresses and Letters 35 omission; but who can be quite sure if McLean or Curtis! had sought to get into the opinion a declara- tion of unlimited power in the people of a State to ex- clude slavery from their limits, — just as Chase? and Mace sought to get such declaration in behalf of the people of a Territory, into the Nebraska bill, — I ask who can be quite sure that it would not have been voted down in the one case as it had been in the other? The nearest approach to the point of declaring the power of a State over slavery is made by Judge Nelson. He approaches it more than once, using the precise idea, and almost the language too, of the Nebraska act. On one occasion his exact language is ‘‘except in cases where the power is restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the law of the State is supreme over the subject of slavery within its jurisdiction.” In what cases the power of the State is so restrained by the United States Constitution is left an open question, precisely as the same question, as to the restraint on the power of the Territories, was left open in the Ne- braska act. Put this and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a State to exclude slavery from its limits. And this may especially be expected if the doctrine of “care not whether slavery be voted down or voted up”’ shall 1 Supreme Court Justices who dissented from the majority decision in the Dred Scott Case. 2 Chase (afterwards in Lincoln’s cabinet) a senator from Ohio who opposed Douglas in the senate. Mace, an Indiana congressman who also opposed the Kansas-Nebraska bill. 36 Abraham Lincoln gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can be maintained when made. Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of be- ing alike lawful in all the States. Welcome or unwel- come, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty ' shall be met and overthrown. We shall lie down, pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are. on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State. To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation. That is what we have to do. How can we best do it? There are those who denounce us openly to their own friends, and yet whisper to us softly that Senator Douglas is the aptest instrument there is with which to effect that object.? They wish us to infer all from the fact that he now has a little quarrel with the pres- ent head of that dynasty, and that he has regularly voted with us on a single point, upon which he and we have never differed. They remind us that he is a great man and that the largest of us are very small ones. Let this be granted. But “a living dog is better than a dead lion.” Judge Douglas, if not a dead lion, for this work is at least a caged and toothless one. How can he op- pose the advances of slavery? He don’t care anything 1The Democrat, Buchanan had succeeded the Democrat, Pierce, and Douglas was generally regarded as certain of the next election. 2 Many anti-slavery men believed that Douglas should not have been opposed for re-election, because he seemed to be turning against the extremists of his own party, especially in his violent objection to the Lecompton Constitution. Addresses and Letters 37 about it. His avowed mission is impressing the ‘‘ pub- lic heart’”’ to care nothing about it. A leading Douglas Democratic newspaper thinks Douglas’s superior talent will be needed to resist the revival of the African slave- trade. Does Douglas believe an effort to revive that trade is approaching? He has not said so. Does he really think so? But if it is, how can he resist it? For years he has labored to prove it a sacred right of white men to take negro slaves into the new territories. Can he possibly show that it is a less sacred right to buy them where they can be bought cheapest? And un- questionably they can be bought cheaper in Africa than in Virginia. He has done all in his power to reduce the whole question of slavery to one of a mere right of prop- erty : and, as such, how can he oppose the foreign slave trade? — how can he refuse that trade in that property shall be “perfectly free,’ unless he does it as a protec- tion to the home production? And as the home pro- ducers will probably not ask the protection, he will be wholly without a ground of opposition. Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man may rightfully be wiser to-day than he was yesterday — that he may rightfully change when he finds himself wrong. But can we, for that reason, run ahead, and infer that he will make any particular change, of which he himself has given no intimation? Can we safely base our action upon any such vague inference? Now, as ever, I wish not to misrepresent Judge Douglas’s position, question his motives, or do aught that can be personally offensive to him. Whenever, if ever, he and we can come together on principle, so that our cause may have assistance from his great ability, I 38 Abraham Lincoln hope to have interposed no adventitious obstacle. But, clearly, he is not now with us — he does not pretend to be — he does not promise ever to be. Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by, its own undoubted friends — those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work, who do care for the result. Two years ago! the Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this under the single impulse of resistance to a com- mon danger, with every external circumstance against us. Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a dis- ciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. Did we brave all then to falter now ? — now, when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent? The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail. If we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may accelerate or mistakes delay it ; but sooner or later the victory is sure to come. The Challenge to Douglas Chicago, Ill., July 24, 1858 Hon. 8. A. Douglas My pear Sir: Will it be agreeable to you to make an arrangement for you and myself to divide time, and address the same audiences the present canvass? Mr. Judd, who will hand you this, will receive your answer ; and, if agreeable to you, will enter into the terms of such arrangement. Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN 1The vote for president was: Buchanan, 1,840,000; Frémont, 1,340,000; Fillmore, 875,000. Addresses and Letters 39 The First Lincoln-Douglas Debate No political debates in the history of our country have been more dramatic, more picturesque, or more far-reaching in their consequences than the seven debates between Lin- ecoln and Douglas in Illinois in 1858. Everyone heard at least one of the meetings between the gaunt lawyer of Spring- field and the domineering little Judge. The scene at each place resembled a county fair: there were muddy farm wag- ons that had trudged miles; there were blaring brass bands and mountebanks; there were peddlers selling watermelons, lemonade, and pain-killers. The crowds were huge. Twenty thousand people heard the first debate. For the most part the conflict was a rough and tumble affair. Personalities and interruptions by the crowd were frequent. As Illinois was a Democratic stronghold, Douglas had the better of it in arrangements. He had the private railway car belonging to George B. McClellan at his disposal, and was escorted through the towns by a brass band. Lincoln’s party, on the other hand, met their man at the station with a hay rack and drove him to the meeting place. The agreement provided that the first speaker should have an hour, the sec- ond an hour and a half, and then the first half an hour. As Douglas opened the first debate, he had the advantage of opening and closing four of the seven. [Ottawa, Illinois, Aug. 21, 1858] DOoUGLAS’S OPENING SPEECH LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, — I appear before you to-day for the purpose of discussing the leading 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 representatives of the two great political parties of the State and Union, upon the principles in issue between those parties; and this vast concourse of people shows the deep feeling which pervades the public mind in regard to the questions dividing us. 40 Abraham Lincoln Prior to 1854, this country was divided into two great political parties, known as the Whig and Democratic parties. Both were national and patriotic, advocating principles that were universal in their application. An old-line Whig could proclaim his principles in Louisiana and Massachusetts alike. Whig principles had no boundary sectional 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 pro- claimed 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 par- ties 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 Democratic party agreed on the slavery question, while they differed on those matters of ex- pediency 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 slav- ery question in all its forms. Clay was the great leader, with Webster on his right and Cass on his left, and sustained by the patriots in the Whig and Democratic ranks who had de- vised and enacted the compromise measures of 1850.4 In 1851 the Whig party and the Democratic party united in Illinois in adopting resolutions indorsing and approving the principles of the compromise measures of 1850 as the proper adjustment of that question. In 1852, when the Whig party assembled in convention at Baltimore for the purpose of nominating a candidate for the presidency, the first thing it did was to declare the compromise measures of 1850, in substance and in principle, a suitable adjustment of that question. [Here the speaker was interrupted by loud and long-continued applause.] My friends, silence will be more 1 The student should note this loose method of arguing. If these statements were true then Seward and Chase were not patriots, for they violently opposed the Compromise of 1850. Addresses and Letters 4\ acceptable to me in the discussion of these questions than applause. I desire to address myself to your judgment, your understanding, and your consciences, and not to your passions or your enthusiasm. When the Democratic convention as- sembled in Baltimore in the same year, for the purpose of nominating a Democratic candidate for the presidency, it also adopted the compromise measures of 1850 as the basis of Democratic action. Thus you see that up to 1853-54 the Whig party and the Democratic party both stood on the same platform with regard to the slavery question.!. That plat- form was the right of the people of each State and each Terri- tory to decide their local and domestic institutions tor them- selves, subject only to the Federal Constitution. During the session of Congress of 1853-54 I introduced into the Senate of the United States a bill to organize the Terri- tories of Kansas and Nebraska on that principle which had been adopted in the compromise measures of 1850, approved by the Whig party and the Democratic party in Illinois in 1851, and indorsed by the Whig party and the Democratic party in national convention in 1852.2. In order that there might be no misunderstanding 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 carrying 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 Abolitionists. In the House of Representatives of the Illinois legislature, upon a resolution 1 Tt would be more accurate to say that each party was hopelessly split into two factions on the slavery question, and trying to deny it. 2 A serious misrepresentation. The Compromise of 1850 did not repeal the Missouri Compromise; the Kansas-Nebraska bill did. 42 Abraham Lincoln asserting that principle, every Whig and every Democrat in the House voted in the affirmative, and only four men voted against it, and those four were old-line Abolitionists.! 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 Aboli- tion party, under the name and disguise of a Republican party. The terms of that arrangement between Lincoln and Trum- bull have been published by Linecoln’s special friend, James H. Matheny, Esq.; and they were that Lincoln should have General Shields’s place in the United States Senate, which was then about to become vacant, and that Trumbull should have my seat when my term expired. Lincoln went to work to Abolitionize the Old Whig party all over the State, pre- tending that he was then as good a Whig as ever; and Trum- bull went to work in his part of the State preaching Aboli- tionism in its milder and lighter form, and trying to Aboli- tionize the Democratic party, and bring old Democrats hand- cuffed and bound hand and foot into the Abolition camp. In pursuance of the arrangement the parties met at Spring- field in October, 1854, and proclaimed their new platform. 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 oceasion a platform for their new Republican 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 are the most important and material resolutions of this Abolition platform : — ? 1 Watch Douglas’s attempt to tie an Abolitionist label on Lincoln. 2 Douglas had no foundation for these statements. The ‘‘plat- form’’ was a forgery. Read Lincoln’s Reply. a Addresses and Letters 43 1. 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 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 cir- cumstances and the exigencies of the nation may demand. 2. Resolved, That the times imperatively demand the re- organization of parties, and, repudiating all previous party attachments, names, and predilections, we unite ourselves together in defence of the liberty and Constitution of the country, and will hereafter co-operate as the Republican party, pledged to the accomplishment of the following pur- poses: to bring the administration of the government back to the control of first principles; to restore Nebraska and Kansas to the position of free Territories; that, as the Con- stitution of the United States vests in the States, and not in Congress, the power to legislate for the extradition of fugi- tives from labor, to repeal and entirely abrogate the Fugi- tive-Slave law; to restrict slavery to those States in which it exists; to prohibit the admission of any more slave States into the Union; to abolish slavery in the District of Colum- bia; to exclude slavery from all the Territories over which the general government has exclusive jurisdiction; and to resist the acquirement of any more Territories unless the practice of slavery therein forever shall have been pro- hibited. 3. Resolved, That in furtherance of these principles we will use such constitutional and lawful means as shall seem best adapted to their accomplishment, and that we will support no man for office, under the general or State govern- ment, 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 allegiance and ties. Now, gentlemen, your Black Republicans have cheered every one of those propositions; and yet I venture to say 44. Abraham Lincoln that you ecannot 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 Re- publicans cheered them as good Black Republican doctrines. My object in reading these resolutions was to put the ques- tion to Abraham Lincoln this day, whether he now stands and will stand by each article in that creed, and carry it out. I desire to know whether Mr. Lincoln to-day stands as he did in 1854, in favor of the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive- Slave law.! 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. I want to know whether he stands pledged against the ad- mission of a new State into the Union with such a constitu- tion as the people of that State may see fit to make. I want to know whether he stands to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to the prohibition of the slave trade between the different States. 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. I desire him to answer whether he is opposed to the acquisition of any more territory unless slav- ery is prohibited therein. J want his answer to these ques- tions. Your affirmative cheers in favor of this Abolition plat- form are not satisfactory. I ask Abraham Lincoln to answer these questions, in order that, when I trot him down to lower Egypt,? I may put the same questions to him. My prin- ciples are the same everywhere. I can proclaim them alike in the North, the South, the East, and the West. My prin- ciples will apply wherever the Constitution prevails and the American flag waves. I desire to know whether Mr. Lin- 1 Lincoln, of course, never did favor the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law. See his First Inaugural. 2 Lower Egypt, the popular name for southern Illinois, across the river from Kentucky. Addresses and Letters AS coln’s principles will bear transplanting from Ottawa to Jonesboro. I put these questions to him to-day distinctly, and ask an answer. I havea 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 Lincoln to dissolve and kill the Old Whig party, and transfer its members, bound hand and foot, to the Abolition party, under the direction of Giddings and Fred Douglass. In the remarks I have made on this platform, and the position of Mr. Lincoln upon it, I mean nothing per- sonally 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 struggling with poverty inastrange land. I was aschool-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 men who perform with ad- mirable 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 secretaries than anything else;? but 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 of the town together; * and the 1A misstatement of fact. Lincoln had nothing to do with the founding of the Republican party in Illinois. He considered him- self ‘‘a good Whig’”’ and was very cautious about connecting himself with the new group. See Lincoln’s Reply. 2Ts Douglas making a pun? 3 An attempt, of course, to make ridiculous any moral argument that Lincoln might use against slavery. 46 Abraham Lincoln dignity and impartiality with which he presided at a horse- race or fist-fight excited the admiration and won the praise of everybody that was present and participated. I sympa- thized with him because he was struggling with difficulties, 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 years. 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 to weleome my old friend and companion. Whilst in Congress, he distinguished himself by his opposition to the Mexican War, taking the side of the common enemy against his own country; and, when he returned home, he found that the indignation of the people followed him every- where, 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 company with Giddings, Lovejoy, Chase, and Fred Douglass, for the Republican party to stand upon. Trumbull, too, was one of our own contemporaries. He was born and raised in old Connecticut, was bred a Fed- eralist, but, removing to Georgia, turned Nullifier when nullification was popular, and, as soon as he disposed of his clocks and wound up his business, migrated to Illinois, turned politician and lawyer here, and made his appearance in 1841 as a member of the legislature. He became noted as the au- thor of the scheme to repudiate a large portion of the State debt of Illinois, which, if successful, would have brought in- famy and disgrace upon the fair escutcheon of our glorious State. The odium attached to that measure consigned him to oblivion for a time. I helped to do it. I walked into a public meeting in the hall of the House of Representatives, and replied to his repudiating speeches, and resolutions were carried over his head denouncing repudiation, and 1This sentence contains two misstatements of fact. Lincoln opposed the scheme to fight Mexico, but he supported the War. Addresses and Letters 47 asserting the moral and legal obligation of Illinois to pay every dollar of the debt she owed and every bond that bore her seal. Trumbull’s malignity has followed me since I thus defeated his infamous scheme. These two men, having formed this combination to Aboli- tionize the Old Whig party and the old Democratic party, and put themselves into the Senate of the United States, in pursuance of their bargain, are now carrying out that arrange- ment. Matheny states that Trumbull broke faith; that the bargain was that Lincoln should be the senator in Shields’s place, and Trumbull was to wait for mine; and the story goes that Trumbull cheated Lincoln, having control of four or five Abolitionized Democrats who were holding over in the Senate. He would not let them vote for Lincoln, which obliged the rest of the Abolitionists to support him in order to secure an Abolition senator. There are a number of au- thorities for the truth of this besides Matheny, and I suppose that even Mr. Lincoln will not deny it. Mr. Lincoln demands that he shall have the place intended for Trumbull, as Trumbull cheated him and got his; and Trumbull is stumping the State, traducing me for the purpose of securing the position for Lincoln, in order to quiet him. It was in consequence of this arrangement that the Republi- can convention was impanelled to instruct for Lincoln and nobody else; and it was on this account that they passed resolutions that he was their first, their last, and their only choice. Archy Williams was nowhere, Browning was no- body,2 Wentworth was not to be considered; they had no man in the Republican party for the place except Lincoln, for the reason that he demanded that they should carry out the arrangement. Having formed this new party for the benefit of deserters from Whiggery and deserters from Democracy, and having 1 The facts, again, are not as Douglas represents them. 2 The O. H. Browning to whom Lincoln wrote several notable letters during his presidency. See page 160. Douglas is trying to split the Republican ranks by making prominent members jealous of Lincoln. 48 Abraham Lincoln 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 his speech at Springfield to the convention which nominated him for the Senate he said : — In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. ‘‘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 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 rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, —old as well as new, North as well as South [‘‘ Good,” ‘‘Good,”’ and cheers.] I am delighted to hear you Black Republicans say, ‘‘Good.”’ I have no doubt that doctrine expresses your sentiments; and I will prove to you now, if you will listen to me, that it is revolutionary and destructive of the existence of this gov- ernment. Mr. Lincoln, in the extract from which I have read, says that this government cannot endure 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 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 re- quired different laws and institutions in different localities. They knew that the laws and regulations which would suit 1 Lincoln makes this the subject of his Cooper Union Address. Addresses and Letters 49 the granite hills of New Hampshire would be unsuited to the rice plantations of South Carolina: and they therefore pro- vided 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 question. 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. Sup- pose 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 overruled 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 uniformity in the local laws and institutions of the different States is neither possible nor de- sirable. If uniformity had been adopted when the govern- ment was established, it must inevitably have been the uni- formity of slavery everywhere, or else the uniformity of negro citizenship and negro equality everywhere. We are told by Lincoln that he is utterly opposed to the Dred Scott decision, and will not submit to it, for the reason that he says it deprives the negro of the rights and privileges of citizenship. That is the first and main reason which he assigns for his warfare on the Supreme Court of the United States and its decision. I ask you, Are you in favor of con- ferring upon the negro the rights and privileges of citizen- ship? Do you desire 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 1 Lincoln, as he frequently pointed out, did not ‘‘preach this doctrine,’’ but simply made a prediction that the county would be in time all slave, or all free. ae, Abraham Lincoln 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 Staté and settle with the white man, if you desire them to vote on an equality with yourselves, and to make them eligible 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 citizenship of the negro.! For one, I am opposed to negro citizenship in any and every form. I believe this government was made on the white basis. I be- lieve 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 conferring it upon negroes, Indians, and other in- ferior races. Mr. 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 Inde- pendence that all men were created equal, and then asks how you can 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 Indepen- dence. If they think so, of course they have a right to say so, and so vote. I do not question Mr. Lincoln’s conscien- - tious belief that the negro was made his equal, and henee 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. Lincoln has evidently learned by heart Parson Lovejoy’s catechism. He can repeat it as well as Farnsworth, and he is worthy of a medal from Father Giddings and Fred Douglass for his Abolitionism. He holds that the negro was born his equal and yours, and that he was endowed with equality by the Almighty, and that no human law can 1 This is not Lincoln’s position; he did not favor negro citizenship at this time. Copyright by Harris and Ewing. INTERIOR OF LINCOLN MEMORIAL. On the side walls are engraved the address at Gettysburg and the Second Inaugural. LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS — URBANA — Addresses and Letters SI deprive him of these rights which were guaranteed to him by the Supreme Ruler of the universe. Now I do not believe that the Almighty ever intended the negro to be the equal of the white man. If he did, he has been a long time demon- strating the fact. For thousands of years the negro has been a race upon the earth; and during all that time, in all lati- tudes 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. Ido 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 Christianity both require that the negro shall have and enjoy every right, every priv- ilege, and every immunity consistent with the safety of the society in which he lives. On that point, I presume, there ean be no diversity of opinion. You and I are bound to ex- tend 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 priv- ileges 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 property, 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 Republicans 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 1 Lincoln did not hold this position. See his Reply, 52 Abraham Lincoln slavery as she did, and I hold Kentucky has the same right to continue and protect slavery that Illinois had to abolish it. I hold that New York had as much right to abolish slavery 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 question of slavery and upon all its domestic institutions. Slavery is not the only question which comes up in this controversy. There is a far more important one to you; and that is, What shall be done with the free negro? We have settled the slavery question as far as we are con- cerned: we have prohibited it in Illinois forever, and, in doing so, I think we have done wisely, and there is no man in the State who would be more strenuous in his opposition to the introduction of slavery than I would; but, when we settled it for ourselves, we exhausted all our power over that sub- ject.1. We have done our whole duty, and can do no more: We must leave each and every other State to decide for itself the same question. In relation to the policy 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 regulate the qualifications of voters within her limits. I would never consent to confer the right of voting and of citi- zenship upon a negro, but still I am not going to quarrel with Maine for differing 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 II- linois; 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 1This is exactly where Lincoln and Douglas clash. Lincoln consistently held that slavery was a national, and not a local question. Addresses and Letters 53 on this question if she minds her own business, and we will do the same thing. Now, my friends, if we will only act conscientiously and rigidly upon this great principle of popu- lar sovereignty, which guarantees to each State and Terri- tory the right to do as it pleases on all things local and domes- tic, instead of Congress interfering, we will continue at peace one with another. Why should Illinois be at war with Mis- souri, or Kentucky with Ohio, or Virginia with New York, merely because their institutions differ? Our fathers in- tended that our institutions should differ. They knew that the North and the South, having different climates, produc- tions, and interests, required different institutions. This doctrine of Mr. Lincoln, of uniformity among the institu- tions of the different States, is a new doctrine, never dreamed of by Washington, Madison, or the framers of this govern- ment. 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 popu- lar sovereignty, recognizing the right of each State to do as it pleased.1. 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 Christianity 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 prin- ciple, we can go forward increasing in territory, 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 in- stitutions were originally based? I believe that this new doctrine preached by Mr. Lincoln and his party will dissolve 1 Misleading. For thirty-four years before the Kansas- Nebraska bill, the provisions of the Missouri Compromise had expressly for- bidden slavery in certain states. 54 | Abraham Lincoln the Union if it succeeds. 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’S REPLY My FELuow-CitizeNns ;— When a man hears himself somewhat misrepresented, it provokes him, — at least, I find it so with myself; but, when misrepresentation 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 his- tory of the old Democratic and the old Whig parties, that Judge Trumbull 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 Trum- bull 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 “conscientious” in saying it. As to those resolutions that he took such a length of time to read, as being the platform of the Republican party in 1854, I say I never had anything to do with them; and I think Trumbull never had. Judge Douglas cannot 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 con- vention to form a Republican party at Springfield ; and I think that my friend Mr. Lovejoy, who is here upon this stand, had a hand init. 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 Addresses and Letters 55 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 Tazewell 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 Democratic 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 ‘ conscien- tious”’ about it. I know that, after Mr. Lovejoy got into the legislature that winter, he complained of me that I had told all the Old 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 testimony 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 satis- factory to me that he may be “conscientious’”’ on the subject. 1Tf any corroboration were needed, Lincoln’s letters at the time would supply it, 56 Abraham Lincoln 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 contest of 1854. [Voice: ‘Put on your specs.’’] Yes, sir, | am obliged to do so. I am no longer a young man. This is the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The fore- going history may not be precisely accurate in every partic- ular; but Iam 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 prospective principle, — allowing it to spread to every other part of the wide world where man 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 injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives 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 Independence, and in- sisting 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 slavery did not now exist among them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist among Addresses and Letters 57 us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses of North and South. Doubtless there are individuals on both sides who would not hold slaves under any circum- stances; 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 become tip-top Abolitionists; while some Northern ones go South, and be- come most cruel slave-masters. 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 reflection 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 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 betters their condition? I 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 justice and sound judg- ment is not the sole question, if, indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot make them equals. 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. 58 Abraham Lincoln When they remind us of their constitutional rights,! I ae- knowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation 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 excuses for permitting slavery to go into our own free territory than it would for reviving the African slave trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing of slaves from Africa, and that which has so long forbidden the taking of them to Nebraska, ean hardly be distinguished in 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 questions 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 anything 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 1The Constitution reads: ‘‘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.’’ — Article IV, Section 2. 2 Lincoln himself had acted as attorney for a slave-owner in a case to recover slaves. See Stephenson, p. 439. Addresses and Letters 59 equality with the negro is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut 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 institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce 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, in- asmuch 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 happi- ness. 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, per- haps 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 sin if I had been; 60 Abraham Lincoln 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 begun by the Presi- dent, I would not do it. But, whenever they asked for any money or land-warrants 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, conveys 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 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 attend- ing to me just now, but I would like to know if it is his Addresses and Letters 61 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 seriously. I know that the judge may readily enough agree with me that the maxim which was put forth by the Saviour 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 mis- apply it. When he undertakes to say that because I think this nation, 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 institu- tions 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 make a house united. If they produce in one section of the country what is called for by the wants of another section, and this other section can supply 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 institu- tions of the country? I leave it to you to say whether, in the history of our government, this institution of slavery has not always failed to be a bond of union, 1The New Testament. See Matthew xii, 22-30. 62 Abraham Lincoln 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 genera- tion and assemblage shall sink into the grave, and an- other race shall arise with the same moral and intel- lectual development we have, — whether, if that in- | stitution is standing in the same irritating position in which it now is, it will not continue an element of division. If so, then I have a right to say that, in regard t this question, the Union is a house divided against it- self ; and when the judge reminds me that I have often said to him that the institution of slavery has existed for eighty years in some States, and yet it does not ex- ist in some others, I agree to the fact, and I account for it by looking at the position in which our fathers orig- inally placed it, —- restricting it from the new Terri- tories where it 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 public 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 motives, — lately, I think that he, and those acting with him, have placed that institution on a new basis, which looks to the perpetuity and nationalization 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 fur- 1 See Cooper Union Address. Addresses and Letters 63 ther 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 advocates will push it forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South.1 Now I believe, if we could arrest the spread, and place it where Washington and Jefferson and Madi- son placed it, it would be in the course of ultimate ex- tinction, and the public mind would, as for eighty years past, believe that it was in the course of ultimate ex- tinction. The crisis would be past, and the institu- tion 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. [A voice: ‘‘Then do you repudiate popular sovereignty?”’| Well, then, let us talk about popular sovereignty! 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 understanding is that popular sovereignty, as now applied 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. 1 See speech at Republican Convention, Springfield. 64 Abraham Lincoln 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 oc- curred to me that I was doing anything or favoring anything to reduce to a dead uniformity all the local institutions of the various States. But I must say, in all fairness to him, if he thinks I am doing something which leads to these bad results, it is none the better that I did not mean it. It is just as fatal to the coun- try, 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 Northern and the Southern States at war with one another, 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 government? I think he says in some of his speeches — indeed, I have one here now — that he saw evidence of a policy to allow slavery to be south 1 Republican Convention Speech, Addresses and Letters 65 of a certain line, while north of it it should be excluded ; 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 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 showing 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 uni- versal in this nation. Having made that speech prin- cipally 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 result of pre-concert; but, when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places, and by different workmen, — Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James,” for in- stance, — 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 1 See Cooper Union Address. 2 Stephen Douglas; Franklin Pierce, President 1853-1857 ; Roger Taney, Chief Justice and author of the Dred Scott decision; James Buchanan, President 1857-1861. 66 Abraham Lincoln their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, —not omitting 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 be- ginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn before the first blow was struck. When my friend, Judge Douglas, came to Chicago on the 9th of July, this speech having been delivered on the 16th 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, amiable, and intelligent gentleman,’ notwith- standing 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 ac- customed to flattery, and it came the sweeter to me. I was rather like the Hoosier with the gingerbread, when he said he reckoned he 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 unfairly 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 illustration, the next time I met him, which was at Springfield, I Addresses and Letters 67 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 ex- tinguished 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, intelligent 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, “T don’t mean to quote from you, but this was the result of what you say.” But I have the right to ask, and I do ask now, Did you not put it in such a form that an ordinary reader or listener would take it as an expression from me? In a speech at Springfield, on the night of the 17th, I thought I might as well attend to my business a little ; and I recalled his attention as well as I could to this charge of conspiracy to nationalize 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 68 Abraham Lincoln afterward I met the judge at Clinton, — that is to say, I was on the ground, but not in the discussion, — 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 know- ing 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 the ‘kind, amiable, intelli- gent 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 fortunate 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 President before the Dred Scott decision was made : does it follow that he could: not have had as perfect an understanding without talking as with it? I am not disposed to stand upon my legal advantage. I am Addresses and Letters 69 disposed to take his denial as being like an answer in chancery, that he neither had any knowledge, informa- tion, nor belief in the existence of such aconspiracy. 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 wit- nesses, by whom to prove it; and, if the evidence proves the existence of the conspiracy, does his broad answer, 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 conspiracy 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 dis- cussion on that branch of the case, and the evidence which brought my mind to the conclusion which I ex- pressed 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 70 Abraham Lincoln he will not point out anything erroneous in the evidence, is it not rather for him to show by a comparison of the evidence that I have reasoned falsely than to call the “kind, amiable, 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 reg- ulate their domestic institutions in their own way, sub- ject only to the Constitution of the United States.”’ Thereupon 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 ex- clude 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 believe I have the amendment here before me, which was offered, and under which the people of the Terri-: tory, through their proper representatives, might, if they saw fit, prohibit the existence of slavery therein. And now I state it as a fact, to be taken back if there is any mistake about it, that 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 doing so, “They know what that reason was. Addresses and Letters 71 It looks to us, since we have seen the Dred Scott decision pronounced, holding that, ‘under the Constitution,” the people cannot exclude slavery, — I say it looks to outsiders, poor, simple, ‘‘amiable, intelligent gentle- men,’ 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 people what that other reason was for voting the amendment down than swelling himself up to vociferate that he may be provoked to call some- body a liar. Again, there is in that same quotation from the Ne- braska bill this clause: ‘it being the true intent and meaning of this bill not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State.’”? I have always been puzzled to know what business the word ‘‘State’’ had in that con- nection. 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 pass- ing was not about States, and was not making provi- sion for States.. What was it placed there for? After seeing the Dred Scott decision, which holds that the people cannot exclude slavery from a Territory, if an- other 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, 72 Abraham Lincoln without calling anybody a liar, can tell what the reason was. When the judge spoke at Clinton, he came very near making a charge of falsehood against me. He used, as I found it printed in a newspaper, which, I remember, was very nearly like the real speech, the following language : — I did not answer the charge [of conspiracy] before for the reason that I did not suppose there was a man in America with a heart so corrupt as to believe such a charge could be true. I have too much respect for Mr. ee to suppose he is serious in making the charge. I confess this is rather a curious view, that out of respect for me he should consider I was making what I deemed rather a grave charge in fun. I confess it strikes me rather strangely. But I let it pass. As the judge did not for a moment believe that there was a man in America whose heart was so ‘‘corrupt”’ as to make such a charge, and as he places me among the “men of America’? who have hearts base enough to make such a charge, I hope he will excuse me if I hunt out another charge very like this; and, if it should turn out that in hunting I should find that other, and it should turn out to be Judge Douglas himself who made it, I hope he will reconsider this question of the deep corruption of heart he has thought fit to ascribe tome. In Judge Douglas’s speech of March 22, 1858, which I hold in my hand, he says : — In this connection there is another topic to which I desire to allude. I seldom refer to the course of newspapers or no- tice the articles which they publish in regard to myself; but | i - : \ | STaTuE oF LINCOLN IN LINCOLN MEMORIAL. AF oP Ae bios ei J Addresses and Letters 73 the course of the Washington Union has been so extraordi- nary for the last two or three months that I think it well enough to make some allusion to it. It has read me out of the Demo- cratic party every other day, at least for two or three months, and keeps reading me out, and, as if it had not succeeded, still continues to read me out, using such terms as ‘‘traitor,”’ ‘‘renegade,’’ “‘deserter,’’ and other kind and polite epithets of that nature. Sir, I have no vindication to make of my Democracy against the Washington Union, or any other newspaper. I am willing to allow my history and actions for the last twenty years to speak for themselves as to my political principles and my fidelity to political obligations. The Washington Union has a personal grievance. When the editor was nominated for public printer, I declined to vote for him, and stated that at some time I might give my reasons for doing so. Since I declined to give that vote, this scurrilous abuse, these vindictive and constant attacks, have been repeated almost daily on me. Will my friend from Michigan read the article to which I allude? This is a part of the speech. You must excuse me from reading the entire article of the Washington Union, as Mr. Stuart read it for Mr. Douglas. ‘The judge goes on and sums up, as I think, correctly : — Mr. President, you here find several distinct propositions advanced boldly by the Washington Union editorially, and apparently authoritatively; and any man who questions any of them is denounced as an Abolitionist, a Free Soiler, a fanatic. The propositions are, first, that the primary ob- ject of all government at its original institution is the pro- tection of person and property, second, that the Constitu- tion of the United States declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and that, therefore, thirdly, 1 This newspaper was the official organ of President Buchanan, with whom Douglas violently disagreed over the Lecompton Constitution. 74 Abraham Lincoln all State laws, whether organic or otherwise, which prohibit the citizens of one State from settling in another with their slave property, and especially declaring it forfeited, are di- rect violations of the original intention of the government and Constitution of the United States, and, fourth, that the emancipation of the slaves of the Northern States was a gross outrage on the rights of property, inasmuch as it was involun- tarily done on the part of the owner. Remember that this article was published in the Union on the 17th of November, and on the 18th appeared the first article giving the adhesion of the Union to the Lecompton Constitution. It was in these words : — ‘““KANSAS AND HER ConstTiITUTION. The vexed question is settled. The problem is solved. The dead point of danger is passed. All serious trouble to Kansas affairs is over and gone.” And a column nearly of the same sort. Then, when you come to look into the Lecompton Constitution, you find the same doctrine incorporated in it which was put forth edi- torially in the Union. What is it? ‘“ARTICLE 7, Section 1. The right of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction; and the right of the owner of a slave to such slave and its increase is the same and as inviolable as the right of the owner of any prop- erty whatever.”’ Then in the schedule is a provision that the constitution — may be amended after 1864 by a two-thirds vote. ‘‘But no alteration shall be made to affect the right of property in the ownership of slaves.’’ It will be seen by these clauses in the Lecompton Constitu- tion that they are identical in spirit with the authoritative article in the Washington Union of the day previous to its indorsement of this constitution. I pass over some portions of the speech, and I hope that any one who feels interested in this matter will read the entire section of the speech, and see whether I do the judge an injustice. He proceeds: Addresses and Letters 7s When I saw that article in the Union of the 17th of No- vember, followed by the glorification of the Lecompton Con- stitution on the 18th of November, and this clause in the con- stitution asserting the doctrine that a State has no right to prohibit slavery within its limits, I saw that there was a fatal blow being struck at the sovereignty of the States of this Union. I stop the quotation there, again requesting that it may all be read. I have read all of the portion I desire to comment upon. What is this charge that the judge thinks I must have a very corrupt heart to make’? It was a purpose on the part of certain high functionaries to make it impossible for the people of one State to prohibit the people of any other State from entering it with their ‘‘ property” so called, and making it a slave State. In other words, it was a charge implying a design to make the institution of slavery national. And now I ask your attention to what Judge Douglas has himself done here. I know that he made that part of the speech as a reason why he had refused to vote for a certain man for public printer; but, when we get at it, the charge itself is the very one I made against him, that he thinks I am so corrupt for uttering. Now whom does he make that charge against? Does he make it against that news- paper editor merely? No: he says it is identical in spirit with the Lecompton Constitution, and so the framers of that constitution are brought in with the editor of the newspaper in that ‘fatal blow being struck.”” He did not call it a ‘‘conspiracy.” In his language it is a “fatal blow being struck.’’ And, if the words carry the meaning better when changed from a “conspiracy” into a “fatal blow being struck,” I 76 Abraham Lincoln will change my expression, and call it “fatal blow being struck.”? We see the charge made not merely against the editor of the Union, but all the framers of the Le- compton Constitution; and not only so, but the article was an authoritative article. By whose authority? Is there any question but that he means it was by the authority of the President and his cabinet, — the ad- ministration? -Is there any sort of question but that he means to make that charge? Then there are the editors of the Union, the framers of the Lecompton Constitution, the President of the United States and his cabinet, and all the supporters of the Lecompton Constitution, in Congress and out of Congress, who are all involved in this ‘‘fatal blow being struck.” I commend to Judge Douglas’s consideration the ques- tion of how corrupt a man’s heart must be to make such a charge! 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. Although 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 running 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 bearing upon this question of making slavery national. Not going back to the records, but taking the speeches he makes, the speeches he made yester- day and day before, and makes constantly all over the country, —I ask your attention to them, In the Addresses and Letters 77 first place, what is necessary to make the institution 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 dan- ger of our going over there and making war upon them. Then what is necessary for the nationalization of slav- ery? It is simply the next Dred Scott decision. It is merely for the Supreme Court to decide that no State under the Constitution can exclude it, just as they have already decided 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 sueceed. Consequently, he who moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and de- cisions possible or impossible 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 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 78 Abraham Lincoln 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 po- litical 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 de- cisions. It is nothing to him that Jefferson! 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 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 ques- tion 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 Cincinnati platform, which affirms that Congress cannot charter a national bank, in the teeth of that old standing decision 1 Both Democrats. Addresses and Letters 79 that Congress can charter a bank. And I remind him of another piece of history on the question of respect for judicial decisions, and it is a piece of Illinois history, belonging 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 secretary 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 oversloughing that decision by the mode of adding 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 tried it.’”’ When he says a court of this kind will lose the confidence of all men, will be prostituted and dis- graced by such a proceeding, I say, ‘‘ 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 obstinate 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 decisions, —I may cut off limb after 80 Abraham Lincoln 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 decision. These things show there is a purpose strong as death and eternity for which he adheres to this de- cision, and for which he will adhere to all other decisions of the same court.!. [A Hibernian: ‘‘ Give us something besides Drid 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 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 penetrate the human soul, and eradicate there the love of liberty ; and then, not till then, could they perpetuate slavery in this country! To my thinking, 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 invites any people, willing to have slavery, to establish it, he is blowing out the moral lights around us. When he _} Lincoln is determined to make the point that another Dred Scott decision was to be expected. Addresses and Letters SI says he “‘cares not whether slavery is voted down or voted up,’ — that it is a sacred right of self-govern- ment, — he is, in my judgment, penetrating the hu- man soul, and eradicating 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 senti- ment to an exact accordance with his own views, — when these vast assemblages shall echo back all these sentiments, — when they shall come 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. The Real Issue In this ringing paragraph Lincoln seizes a question that Douglas wished to subordinate to ‘‘local police regulations”’ and places it so far above mere local concern that it becomes an issue of first importance to all mankind. [From the last Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Alton, Illinois, Oc- tober 15, 1858} That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles — right and wrong — throughout the world. They .are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other 82 Abraham Lincoln the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, ‘‘ You toil and work and earn bread, and I’ll eat it.” No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical prin- ciple. Letter to H. D. Sharpe The popular vote following the debates gave Lincoln’s party 126,000, and Douglas Democrats 122,000; but the legislature had a majority for Douglas and he was chosen senator. Lincoln, however, had the satisfaction of knowing that he was building for the future. Springfield, December 8, 1858 H. D. Sharpe, Esq. Dear Str: Your very kind letter of November 9th was duly received. I do not know that you expected or desired an answer; but glancing over the contents of yours again, I am prompted to say that, while I desired the result of the late canvass to have been dif- ferent, I still regard it as an exceedingly small matter. I think we have fairly entered upon a durable struggle as to whether this nation is to ultimately become all slave or all free, and though I fall early in the contest, it is nothing if I shall have contributed, in the least degree, to the final rightful result. Respectfully yours, A. LINCOLN Addresses and Letters 83 The Columbus Speech In a letter written afew months after the Douglas debates, Lincoln said, ‘“‘I do not think I am fit for the Presidency.”’ Nevertheless, when he heard, in the campaign of 1859, that Douglas was speaking in Ohio, he accepted an invitation to speak at Columbus and Cincinnati. The Columbus speech is important because it shows that his failure to win the senatorship had not at all discouraged Lincoln and that he looked forward to waging the struggle beyond his own state border. Furthermore, in it he makes clear one of the per- plexing phases of the slavery question, how much political and social privilege the negro was to have when slavery ceased; and he gives, in substance, the argument of his Cooper Union Address. [September 16, 1859] FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF OnIO: I cannot fail to remember that I appear for the first time before an audience in this now great state —an audience that is accustomed to hear such speakers as Corwin, and Chase,! and Wade, and many other renowned men; and remembering this, I feel that it will be well for you, as for me, that you should not raise your ex- pectations to that standard to which you would have been justified in raising them had one of these distin- guished men appeared before you. You would perhaps be only preparing a disappointment for yourselves, and, as a consequence of your disappointment, mortification to me. I hope, therefore, that you will commence with very moderate expectations; and, perhaps, if 1 All three prominent in Ohio. Chase a U.S. Senator, afterwards became Lincoln’s Secretary of the Treasury; Wade, a member of the U. S. Senate, was a violent anti-South partisan. 84 | Abraham Lincoln you will give me your attention, I shall be able to in- terest you to a moderate degree. Appearing here for the first time in my life, I have been somewhat embarrassed for a topic by way of in- troduction to my speech; but I have been relieved from that embarrassment by an introduction which the Ohio Statesman newspaper gave me this morning. In this newspaper I have read an article in which, among other statements, I find the following : “Tn debating with Senator Douglas during the mem- orable contest last fall, Mr. Lincoln declared in favor of negro suffrage, and attempted to defend that vile conception against the Little Giant.”’ I mention this now, at the opening of my remarks, for the purpose of making three comments upon it. The first I have already announced — it furnished me an introductory topic; the second is to show that the gentleman is mistaken; thirdly, to give him an oppor- tunity to correct it. There, my friends, you have briefly what I have, upon former occasions, said upon the subject to which this newspaper, to the extent of its ability, has drawn the public attention. In it you not only perceive, as a probability, that in that contest I did not at any time say I was in favor of negro suffrage; but the absolute proof that twice — once substantially and once ex- pressly —I declared against it. Having shown you this, there remains but a word of comment upon that newspaper article. It is this: that I presume the editor of that paper is an honest and truth-loving man, Addresses and Letters 85 and that he will be greatly obliged to me for furnishing him thus early an opportunity to correct the misrepre- sentation he has made, before it has run so long that malicious people can call him a har. The giant himself! has been here recently. I have seen a brief report of his speech. If it were otherwise unpleasant to me to introduce the subject of the negro as a topic for discussion, I might be somewhat relieved by the fact that he dealt exclusively in that subject while he was here. I shall, therefore, without much hesitation or diffidence, enter upon this subject. The American people, on the first day of January, 1854, found the African slave-trade prohibited by a law of Congress. Ina majority of the states of this Union, they found African slavery, or any other sort of slavery, prohibited by state constitutions. They also found a law existing, supposed to be valid, by which slavery was excluded from almost all the territory the United States then owned.? This was the condition of the country, with reference to the institution of slavery, on the first of January, 1854. A few days after that, a bill was introduced into Congress, which ran through its regular course in the two branches of the national legislature, and finally passed into a law in the month of May,*? by which the act of Congress prohibiting slavery from going into the territories of the United States was repealed. In connection with the law itself, and, in fact, in the terms of the law, the then existing prohibition was not only repealed, but there was a dec- laration of a purpose on the part of Congress never 1 Douglas. 2'The Missouri Compromise. 3 The Kansas-Nebraska bill. 86 Abraham Lincoln thereafter to exercise any power that they might have, real or supposed, to prohibit the extension or spread of slavery. This was a very great change; for the law thus repealed was of more than thirty years’ standing. Following rapidly upon the heels of this action of Congress, a decision of the Supreme Court is made, by which it is declared that Congress, if it desires to prohibit the spread of slavery into the territories, has no constitutional power to do so.! Not only so, but that decision lays down principles, which, if pushed to their logical conclusion —I say pushed to their logical conclusion — would decide that the constitu- tions of free states, forbidding slavery, are themselves unconstitutional. Mark me, I do not say the judges said this, and let no man say I affirm the judges used these words; but I only say it is my opinion that what they did say, if pressed to its logical conclusion, will inevitably result thus.? Looking at these things, the Republican party, as I understand its principles and policy, believes that there is great danger of the institution of slavery being spread out and extended, until it is ultimately made alike lawful in all the states of this Union; so believing, to prevent that incidental and ultimate consummation is the original and chief purpose of the Republican organization. I say “chief purpose” of the Republican organization ; for it is certainly true that if the national house shall fall into the hands of the Republicans, they will have to attend to all the other matters of national housekeeping as well as this. The chief 1 The Dred Scott Decision. 2 The point of his Springfield Speech. Addresses and Letters 87 and real purpose of the Republican party is eminently conservative. It proposes nothing save and except to restore this government to its original tone in regard to this element of slavery, and there to maintain it, looking for no further change in reference to it than that which the original framers of the government them- selves expected and looked forward to.! The chief danger to this purpose of the Republican party is not just now the revival of the African slave- trade, or the passage of a congressional slave-code, or the declaring of a second Dred Scott decision, making slavery lawful in all the states. These are not pressing us Just now. They are not quite ready yet. The au- thors of these measures know that we are too strong for them; but they will be upon us in due time, and we will be grappling with them hand to hand, if they are not now headed off. They are not now the chief danger to the purpose of the Republican organization ; but the most imminent danger that now threatens that purpose is that insidious Douglas popular sover- elgnty. This is the miner and sapper. While it does not propose to revive the African slave-trade, nor to pass a slave-code, nor to make a second Dred Scott decision, it is preparing us for the onslaught and charge of these ultimate enemies when they shall be ready to come on, and the word of command for them to ad- vance shall be given. I say this Douglas popular sov- ereignty —for there is a broad distinction, as I now understand it, between that article and a genuine popu- lar sovereignty. 1 The topic of his Cooper Union Address. 88 Abraham Lincoln I believe there is a genuine popular sovereignty. I think a definition of genuine popular sovereignty, in the abstract, would be about this: That each man shall do precisely as he pleases with himself, and with all those things which exclusively concern him. Ap- plied to government, this principle would be, that a general government shall do all those things which pertain to it, and all the local governments shall do precisely as they please in respect to those matters which exclusively concern them. I understand that this government of the United States, under which we live, is based upon this principle; and I am misunder- stood if it is supposed that I have any war to make upon that principle. Now, what is Judge Douglas’s popular sovereignty ? It is, as a principle, no other than that if one man chooses to make a slave of another man, neither that other man nor anybody else has a right to object. Applied in government, as he seeks to apply it, it is this: If, in a new territory into which a few people are beginning to enter for the purpose of making their homes, they choose to either exclude slavery from their limits or to establish it there, however one or the other may affect the persons to be enslaved, or the infinitely greater number of persons who are afterward to inhabit that territory, or the other members of the families of com- munities, of which they are but an incipient member, or the general head of the family of states as parent of all — however their action may affect one or the other. of these, there is no power or right to interfere. That is Douglas’s popular sovereignty applied. He has a good deal of trouble with popular sov- a ‘LNGNONOJ, NOLONIHSVA\ FHL SHOVY LI SV IVINOWSA FHI, “bung pun sr1110H fig 1ybrshido) | LIBRARY UNIVERSHY Gi 4 cInols URBANA aon yer Addresses and Letters 89 ereignty. His explanations explanatory of explana- tions explained are interminable. The most lengthy and, as I suppose, the most maturely considered of his long series of explanations is his great essay in Harper’s Magazine! I will not attempt to enter on any very thorough investigation of his argument as there made and presented. I will nevertheless occupy a good por- tion of your time here in drawing your attention to certain points in it. There are two main objects, as I understand it, of this Harper’s Magazine essay. One was to show, if possible, that the men of our Revolutionary times were in favor of his popular sovereignty ; and the other was to show that the Dred Scott decision had not entirely squelched out this popular sovereignty. I do not propose, in regard to this argument drawn from the history of former times, to enter into a detailed exami- nation of the historical statements he has made. I have the impression that they are inaccurate in a great many instances ; sometimes in positive statement, but very much more inaccurate by the suppression of statements that really belong to the history. But I do not propose to affirm that this is so to any very great extent, or to enter into a very minute examination of his historical statement. I avoid doing so upon this principle — that if it were important for me to pass out of this lot in the least period of time possible, and I came to that fence and saw by a calculation of 1 Harper’s of September, 1859. ele) Abraham Lincoln my own strength and agility that I could clear it at a bound, it would be folly for me to stop and consider whether I could or could not crawl through a crack. So I say of the whole history contained in his essay, where he endeavored to link the men of the Revolu- tion to popular sovereignty. It only requires an effort to leap out of it —a single bound to be entirely suc- cessful. If you read it over, you will find that he quotes here and there from documents of the Revolu- tionary times, tending to show that the people of the colonies were desirous of regulating their own concerns in their own way; that the British Government should not interfere; that at one time they struggled with the British Government to be permitted to exclude the African slave-trade; if not directly, to be permitted to exclude it indirectly by taxation sufficient to dis- courage and destroy it. From these and many things of this sort, Judge Douglas argues that they were in favor of the people of our own territories excluding slavery if they wanted to, or planting it there if they wanted to, doing just as they pleased from the time they settled upon the territory. Now, however his history may apply, and whatever of his argument there may be that is sound and accurate or unsound and inaccurate, if we can find out what these men did themselves do upon this very question of slavery in the territories, does it not end the whole thing? If, after all this labor and effort to show that the men of the Revolution were in favor of his popular sovereignty and his mode of dealing with slavery in the territories, we can show that these very men took hold of that subject, and dealt with it, we can see for ourselves how they dealt Addresses and Letters gI with it. It is not a matter of argument or inference, but we know what they thought about it. It iS precisely upon that part of the history of the country that one important omission is made by Judge Douglas. He selects parts of the history of the United States upon the subject of slavery, and treats it as the whole, omitting from his historical sketch the legis- lation of Congress in regard to the admission of Mis- sourl, by which the Missouri Compromise was es- tablished, and slavery excluded from a country half as large as the present United States. All this is left out of his history, and in no wise alluded to by him, so far as I can remember, save once, when he makes a re- mark, that upon his principle the Supreme Court was authorized to pronounce a decision that the act called the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. All that history has been left out. But this part of the history of the country was not made by the men of the Revolution. There was another part of our political history made by the very men who were the actors in the Revolution, which has taken the name of the Ordinance of ’87. Let me bring that history to your attention. In 1784, I believe, this same Mr. Jefferson drew up an ordinance for the government of the country upon which we now -stand; or rather a frame or draft of an ordinance for the government of this country, here in Ohio, our neighbors in Indiana, us who live in IIlinois, and our neighbors in Wisconsin and Michigan. In that ordi- nance, drawn up not only for the government of that territory, but for the territories south of the Ohio River, Mr. Jefferson expressly provided for the prohi- 92 Abraham Lincoln bition of slavery. Judge Douglas says, and perhaps he is right, that that provision was lost from that or- dinance. I believe that is true. When the vote was taken upon it, a majority of all present in the Congress of the Confederation voted for it; but there were so many absentees that those voting for it did not make the clear majority necessary, and it was lost. But three years after that the Congress of the Confederation were together again, and they adopted a new ordinance for the government of this Northwest Territory, not contemplating territory south of the river, for the states owning that territory had hitherto refrained from giving it to the General Government; hence they made the ordinance to apply only to what the government owned. In that, the provision excluding slavery was inserted and passed unanimously, or at any rate it passed and became a part of the law of the land. Under that ordinance we live. First, here, in Ohio, you were a territory, then an enabling act was passed, authorizing you to form a constitution and state government, provided it was Republican,! and not in conflict with the ordinance of ’87. When you framed your constitu- tion and presented it for admission, I think you will find the legislation upon the subject will show that, ‘““whereas you had formed a constitution that was Re- publican, and not in conflict with the ordinance of ’87,’’* therefore you were admitted upon equal footing with the original states. The same process in a few years was gone through with Indiana, and so with Illinois, and the same substantially with Michigan and Wisconsin. 1 That is, of a republic, Addresses and Letters | 93 Not only did that ordinance prevail, but it was con- stantly looked to whenever a step was taken by a new territory to become a state. Congress always turned their attention to it, and in all their movements upon this subject they traced their course by that ordinance of ’°87. When they admitted new states they adver- tised them of this ordinance as a part of the legislation of the country. They did so because they had traced the ordinance of ’87 throughout the history of this country. Begin with the men of the Revolution, and go down for sixty entire years, and until the last scrap of that territory comes into the Union in the form of the state of Wisconsin, everything was made to conform to the ordinance of ’87, excluding slavery from that vast extent of country. I omitted to mention in the right place that the Constitution of the United States was in process of being framed when that ordinance was made by the Congress of the Confederation; and one of the first acts of Congress itself, under the new Constitution itself, was to give force to that ordinance by putting power to carry it out into the hands of new officers under the Constitution, in the place of the old ones, who had been legislated out of existence by the change in the government from the Confederation to the Con- stitution. Not only so, but I believe Indiana once or twice, if not Ohio, petitioned the General Government for the privilege of suspending that provision, and al- lowing them to have slaves. A report made by Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, himself a slaveholder, was directly against it, and the action was to refuse them the privilege of violating the ordinance of ’87. 94 Abraham Lincoln This period of history, which I have run over briefly, is, I presume, as familiar to most of the assembly as any other part of the history of our country. I suppose that few of my hearers are not as familiar with that part of history as I am, and I only mention it to recall your attention to it at this time. And hence I ask how extraordinary a thing it is that a man who has occupied a position upon the floor of the Senate of the United States, who is now in his third term, and who looks to see the government of this whole country fall into his own hands,! pretending to give a truthful and accurate history of the slavery question in this country, should so entirely ignore the whole of that portion of our history — the most important of all. Is it not a most extraordinary spectacle, that a man should stand up and ask for any confidence in his statements, who sets out as he does with portions of history, calling upon the people to believe that it is a true and fair representation, when the leading part and controlling feature of the whole history is carefully suppressed ? But the mere leaving out is not the most remarkable feature of this most remarkable essay. His proposition is to establish that the leading men of the Revolution were for his great principle of non-intervention by the government in the question of slavery in the territories ; while history shows that they decided in the cases actually brought before them in exactly the contrary way, and he knows it. Not only did they so decide at that time, but they stuck to it during sixty years, through thick and thin, as long as there was one of the 1 Douglas seemed certain of the presidency at this time, Addresses and Letters 95 Revolutionary heroes upon the stage of political action. Through their whole course, from first to last, they clung to freedom. And now he asks the community to believe that the men of the Revolution were in favor of his great principle, when we have the naked history that they themselves dealt with this very subject- matter of his principle, and utterly repudiated his principle, acting upon a precisely contrary ground. It is as impudent and absurd as if a prosecuting at- torney should stand up before a jury, and ask them to convict A as the murderer of B, while B was walking alive before them. I say again, if Judge medals asserts that the men of the Revolution acted upon principles by which, to be consistent with themselves, they ought to have adopted his popular sovereignty, then, upon a consid- eration of his own argument, he had a right to make you believe that they understood the principles of government, but misapplied them — that he has arisen to enlighten the world as to the just application of this principle. He has a right to try to persuade you that he understands their principles better than they did, and therefore he will apply them now, not as they did, but as they ought to have done. He has a right to go before the community, and try to convince them of this; but he has no right to attempt to impose upon anyone the belief that these men themselves approved of his great principle. There are two ways of establishing a proposition. One is by trying to dem- onstrate it upon reason, and the other is to show that great men in former times have thought so and so, and thus to pass it by the weight of pure authority. Now 96 Abraham Lincoln if Judge Douglas will demonstrate somehow that this is popular sovereignty — the right of one man to make a slave of another, without any right in that other, or anyone else, to object — demonstrate it as Euclid demonstrated propositions — there is no objection. But when he comes forward, seeking to carry a princi- ple by bringing to it the authority of men who them- selves utterly repudiated that principle, I ask that he shall not be permitted to do it. I see, in the Judge’s speech here, a short sentence in these words: ‘‘Our fathers, when they formed this government under which we live, understood this question just as well and even better than we do now.” That is true; I stick to that. I will stand by Judge Douglas in that to the bitter end. And now, Judge Douglas, come and stand by me, and truthfully show how they acted, understanding it better than we do. All I ask of you, Judge Douglas, is to stick to the prop- osition that the men of the Revolution understood this subject better than we do now, and with that better understanding they acted better than you are trying to act now. I wish to say something now in regard to the Dred Scott decision, as dealt with by Judge Douglas. In that ‘‘memorable debate’? between Judge Douglas and myself, last year, the Judge thought fit to com- mence a process of catechising me, and at Freeport I answered his questions, and propounded some to him. Among others propounded to him was one that I have here now. The substance, as I remember it, is: ‘‘Can the people of a United States territory, under the Dred Scott decision, in any lawful way, against the wish of Addresses and Letters 97 any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits, prior to the formation of a state constitu- tion?’’ He answered that they could lawfully exclude slavery from the United States territories, notwith- standing the Dred Scott decision. There was some- thing about that answer that has probably been a trouble to the Judge ever since.! The Dred Scott decision expressly gives every citi- zen of the United States a right to carry his slaves into the United States territories. And now there was some inconsistency in saying that the decision was right, and saying, too, that the people of the territory could lawfully drive slavery out again. When all the trash, the words, the collateral matter, was cleared away from it — all the chaff was fanned out of it —it was a bare absurdity: no less than that a thing may be law- fully driven away from where it has a lawful right to be. Clear it of all the verbiage, and that is the naked truth of his proposition — that a thing may be lawfully driven from the place where it has a lawful right to stay. Well, it was because the Judge couldn’t help seeing this that he has had so much trouble with it; and what I want to ask your especial attention to, just now, is to remind you, if you have not noticed the fact, that the Judge does not any longer say that the people can exclude slavery. He does not say so in the copy- right essay ;? he did not say so in the speech that he made here; and, so far as I know, since his reélection to the Senate, he has never said, as he did at Freeport, 1This answer at Freeport won the senatorship for Douglas but split the Democratic party in the nation. 2In Harper’s Magazine. 98 Abraham Lincoln that the people of the territories can exclude slavery. He desired that you, who wish the territories to remain free, should believe that he stands by that position, but he does not say it himself. He escapes, to some extent, the absurd position I have stated by changing his language entirely. What he says now is something different in language, and we will consider whether it is not different in sense too. It is now that the Dred Scott decision, or rather the Constitution under that de- cision, does not carry slavery into the territories beyond the power of the people of the territories to control it as other property. He does not say the people can drive it out, but they can control it as other property. The language is different ; we should consider whether the sense is different. Driving a horse out of this lot is too plain a proposition to be mistaken about it; it is putting him on the other side of the fence. Or it might be a sort of exclusion of him from the lot if you were to kill him and let the worms devour him; but neither of these things is the same as “controlling him as other property.’’ That would be to feed him, to pamper him, to ride him, to use and abuse him, to make the most money out of him, ‘‘as other property”’ ; but, please you, what do the men who are in favor of slavery want more than this? What do they really want, other than that slavery, being in the territories, shall be controlled as other property ? If they want anything else, I do not comprehend it. I ask your attention to this, first, for the purpose of pointing out the change of ground the Judge has made; and, in the second place, the importance of the change — that that change is not such as to give you gentle- Addresses and Letters 99 men who want his popular sovereignty the power to exclude the institution or drive it out at all. I know the Judge sometimes squints at the argument that in controlling it as other property by unfriendly legisla- tion they may control it to death, as you might in the case of a horse, perhaps, feed him so lightly and ride him so much that he would die. But when you come to legislative control, there is something more to be at- tended to. I have no doubt, myself, that if the terri- tories should undertake to control slave property as other property — that is, control it in such a way that it would be the most valuable as property, and make it bear its just proportion in the way of burdens as prop- erty — really deal with it as property — the Supreme Court of the United States will say, ‘‘God speed you, and amen.” But I undertake to give the opinion, at least, that if the territories attempt by any direct legislation to drive the man with his slave out of the territory, or to decide that his slave is free because of his being taken in there, or to tax him to such an ex- tent that he cannot keep him there, the Supreme Court will unhesitatingly decide all such legislation unconstitutional, as long as that Supreme Court is constructed as the Dred Scott Supreme Court is. The first two things they have already decided, except that there is a little quibble among lawyers between the words dicta and decision.! They have already decided that a negro cannot be made free by territorial legislation. 1A decision of a court is its finding upon a question of law or fact arising in a case. A dictwm is a judicial opinion expressed by judges on points that do not necessarily arise in the case, and are not involved in it. «5 URZANA a Addresses and Letters III Who were our fathers that framed the Constitution? I suppose the “thirty-nine”’ who signed the original in- strument may be fairly called our fathers who framed that part of the present government. It is almost ex- actly .true to say they framed it, and it is altogether true to say they fairly represented the opinion and sentiment of the whole nation at that time. Their names, being familiar to nearly all, and accessible to quite all, need not now be repeated. I take these “thirty-nine,” for the present, as be- — ing ‘our fathers who framed the government under which we live.” What is the question which, accord- - ing to the text, those fathers understood ‘‘just as well and even better than we do now’’? It is this: Does the proper division of local from Federal authority, or anything in the Constitution for- bid our Federal Government to control as to slavery in our Federal Territories? Upon this, Senator Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republicans, the negative. This affirmation and denial form an issue; and this issue — this question — is precisely what the text declares our fathers under- stood “better than we.’’ Let us now inquire whether the “thirty-nine,”’ or any of them, ever acted upon this question; and if they did, how they acted upon it — how they expressed that better 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 after- wards framed the Constitution were in that Congress, 12 Abraham Lincoln and voted on that question. Of these, Roger Sherman, Thomas Mifflin, and Hugh Williamson voted for the prohibition, thus showing that in their understanding, no line dividing local from Federal authority nor any- thing else, properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in Federal territory. The other of the four, James McHenry, voted against the pro- hibition, showing that for some cause he thought it im- _ proper to vote for it. In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the convention was in session framing it, and while the Northwestern Territory still was the only Territory owned by the United States, the same question of pro- hibiting slavery in the Territory again came before the Congress of the Confederation and two more of the “thirty-nine”? who afterward signed the Constitution were in that Congress, and voted on the question. They were William 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 prohibition became a law, being part of what is now well known as the or- dinance 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, ex- pressed any opinion on that precise question. In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the Addresses and Letters 113 Constitution, an act was passed to enforce the ordi- nance 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 Fitz- simmons, then a member of the House of Representa- tives from Pennsylvania. It- went through all its stages without a word of opposition, and finally passed both branches without ayes and nays, which is equiva- lent to a unanimous passage. In this Congress there were sixteen of the “thirty-nine” fathers who framed the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman, William 8. Johnson, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Thos. Fitzsimmons, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, William Paterson, George Clymer, Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll, and James Madison. This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from Federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, properly forbade Congress to pro- hibit slavery in the Federal territory; else both their fidelity to correct principle, and their oath to support the Constitution, would have constrained them to op- pose the prohibition. Again, George Washington, another of the ‘‘thirty- nine,’ was then President of the United States, and as such approved and signed the bill, thus completing its validity as a law, and thus showing that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from Federal au- thority, nor anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in Fed- eral territory. No great while after the adoption of the original 114 Abraham Lincoln Constitution, North Carolina ceded to the Federal Government the country now constituting the State of Tennessee; and a few years later Georgia ceded that which now constitutes the States of Mississippi and Alabama. In both deeds of cession it was made a con- dition by the ceding States that the Federal Govern- ment should not prohibit slavery in the ceded country. Besides this, slavery was then actually in the ceded country. Under these circumstances, Congress, on taking charge of these countries, did not absolutely prohibit slavery within them. But they did interfere with it — take control of it — even there, to a certain extent. In 1798 Congress organized the Territory of Mississippi. In the act of organization they prohibited the bringing of slaves into the Territory from any place without the United States, by fine, and giving freedom to slaves so brought. This act passed both branches of Congress without yeas and nays. In that Congress were three of the “thirty-nine”? who framed the orig- inal 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 any- thing in the Constitution, properly forbade the Fed- eral Government to control as to slavery in Federal territory. In 1808 the Federal Government purchased the Louisiana country. Our former territorial acquisi- tions came from certain of our own States; but this Louisiana country was acquired from a foreign nation. In 1804 Congress gave a territorial organization to Addresses and Letters IIS that part of it which now constitutes the State of Louisiana. New Orleans, lying within that part, was an old and comparatively large city. There were other considerable towns and settlements, and slavery was extensively and thoroughly intermingled with the peo- ple. Congress did not, in the Territorial Act, prohibit slavery; but they did interfere with it — take control of it — in a more marked and extensive way than they did in the case of Mississippi. ‘The substance of the provision therein made in relation to slaves was: Ist. That no slave should be imported into the Territory from foreign parts. 2d. That no slave should be carried into it who had been imported into the United States since the first day of May, 1798. 3d. That no slave should be carried into it, except by the owner, and for his own use as a settler; the penalty in all the cases being a fine upon the violator of the law, and freedom to the slave. This act also was passed without yeas or nays. In the Congress which passed it there were two of the “thirty-nine.” They were Abraham Baldwin and Jonathan Dayton. As stated in the case of Mississippi, it is probable they both voted for it. They would not have allowed it to pass without recording their opposi- tion to it if, in their understanding, it violated either the line properly dividing local from Federal authority, or any provision of the Constitution. In 1819-20 came and passed the Missouri question. Many votes were taken by yeas and nays, in both branches of Congress, upon the various phases of the general question. Two of the “thirty-nine”? — Rufus 1i6 Abraham Lincoln. King and Charles Pinckney — were members of that Congress. Mr. King steadily voted for slavery pro- hibition and against all compromises, while Mr. Pinck- ney as steadily voted against slavery prohibition and against all compromises. By this, Mr. King showed that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from Federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, 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 prohibition in that case. The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the “thirty-nine”’ or of any of them, upon the direct issue, which I have been able to discover. To enumerate the persons who thus acted as being four in 1784, two in 1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 1798, two in 1804, and two in 1819-20, there would be thirty of them. But this would be counting John Langdon, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus King, and George Read, each twice, and Abraham Baldwin three times. The true number of those of the “ thirty- nine’? whom I have shown to have acted upon the question which, by the text, they understood better than we, is twenty-three, leaving sixteen not shown to have acted upon it in any way. Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our thirty- nine fathers ‘“‘who framed the government under which we live,” who have, upon their official responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the very question which the text affirms they ‘‘understood just as well, and even better, than we do now’’; and twenty-one of them — a clear majority of the whole ‘thirty-nine”’ Addresses and Letters Try —so acting upon it as to make them guilty of gross political impropriety and willful perjury, if, in their understanding, any proper division between local and Federal authority, or anything in the Constitution they had made themselves, and sworn to support, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories. Thus the twenty-one acted and, as actions speak louder than words, so actions under such responsibility speak still louder. Two of the twenty-three voted against congressional prohibition of slavery in the Federal Territories, in the instances in which they acted upon the question. But for what reasons they so voted is not known. They may have done so because they thought a proper division of local from Federal authority, or some pro- vision 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 sufficient grounds of expediency. No one who has sworn to support the Constitution can conscientiously vote for what he understands to be an unconstitutional 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, therefore, would be unsafe to set down even the two who voted against the prohibition as having done so because in their understanding, any proper division of local from Federal authority, or any- thing in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Govern- ment to control as to slavery in Federal territory. The remaining sixteen of the “thirty-nine,” so far as I have discovered, have left no record of their an- 118 Abraham Lincoln derstanding upon the direct question of Federal con- trol of slavery in the Federal Territories. But there is much reason to believe that their understanding upon that question would not have appeared different from that of their twenty-three compeers, had it been mani- fested at all. For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I have purposely omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any person, however dis- tinguished, other than the thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution; and, for the same reason, I have also omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any of the ‘“‘thirty- nine’’ even on any other phase of the general question of slavery. If we should look into their acts and dec- larations 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 control of slavery in Federal Territories, the sixteen, if they had acted at all, would probably have acted just as the twenty-three did. Among that six- teen were several of the most noted antislavery 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 Constitution, twenty- one — a clear majority of the whole — certainly under- stood that no proper division of local from Federal authority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control slavery in the Fed- Addresses and Letters II9 eral Territories; while all the rest had probably the same understanding. Such, unquestionably, was the understanding of our fathers who framed the original Constitution; and the text affirms that they under- stood the question “‘better than we.” But, so far, I have been considering the understand- ing of the question manifested by the framers of the original Constitution. In and by the original instru- ment, a mode was provided for amending it; and, as I have already stated, the present frame of “the govern- ment under which we live”’ consists of that original, and twelve amendatory articles framed and adopted since. Those who now insist that Federal control of slavery in Federal Territories violates the Constitution, point us to the provisions which they suppose it thus violates; and, as I understand, they all fix upon provi- sions in these amendatory articles, and not in the orig- inal 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, lib- erty, or property without due process of law’’; while Senator Douglas and his peculiar adherents plant them- selves upon the tenth amendment, providing that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Con- stitution”’ “‘are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Now, it so happens that these amendments were framed by the first Congress which sat under the Con- stitution — the identical Congress which passed the act, already mentioned, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. Not only was - it the same Congress, but they were the identical, same 120 Abraham Lincoln. individual men who, at the same session, and at the same time within the session, had under considera- tion, and in progress toward maturity, these constitu- tional amendments, and this act prohibiting slavery in all the territory the nation then owned. The constitu- tional amendments were introduced before, and passed after, the act enforcing the ordinance of ’87; so that, during the whole pendency of the act to enforce the ordinance, the constitutional amendments were also pending. The seventy-six members of that Congress, includ- ing sixteen of the framers of the original Constitution, as before stated, were preéminently our fathers who framed that part of “the government under which we live” which is now claimed as forbidding the Federal Government to control slavery in the Federal Terri- tories. Is it not a little presumptuous in any one at this day to affirm that the two things which that Congress de- liberately framed, and carried to maturity at the same time, are absolutely inconsistent with each other? And does not such affirmation become impudently ab- surd when coupled with the other affirmation, from the same mouth, that those who did the two things alleged to be inconsistent, understood whether they really were inconsistent better than we— better than he who affirms that they are inconsistent ? It is surely safe to assume that the thirty-nine framers of the original Constitution, and the seventy-six mem- bers of the Congress which framed the amendments thereto, taken together, do certainly include those who may be fairly called ‘‘our fathers who framed the Addresses. and Letters 121 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 Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories. I go a step further. I defy any one to show that any living man in the whole world ever did, prior to the beginning of the present century (and I might almost say prior to the beginning of the last half of the present century), declare that, in his under- standing, any proper division of local from Federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories. To those who now so declare I give not only “our fathers who framed the government under which we live,”’ but with them all other living men within the century in which it was framed, among whom to search, and they shall not be able to find the evidence of a single man agreeing with them. Now, and here, let me guard a little against being misunderstood. I do not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did. To do so, would be to discard all the lights of current experi- ence — to reject all progress, all improvement. What I do say is, that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we should do so upon evidence so conclusive, and argument so clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand; and most surely not in a case whereof we ourselves Heclare they understood the ques- tion better than we. 122 Abraham Lincoln If any man at this day sincerely believes that a proper division of local from Federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Govern- ment to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories, 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 under which we live”’ were of the same opinion — thus substituting falsehood and deception for truthful evi- dence and fair argument. If any man at this day sincerely believes ‘our fathers who framed the govern- ment under which we live” used and applied principles, in other cases, which ought to have led them to under- stand that a proper division of local from Federal au- thority, or some part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Fed- eral Territories, he is right to say so. But he should, at the same time, brave the responsibility of declaring that, in his opinion, he understands their principles better than they did themselves; and especially should he not shirk that responsibility by asserting that they understood the question just as well and even better than we do now. | But enough! Let all who believe that “our fathers who framed the government under which we live un- derstood this question just as well, and even better than we do now,” speak as they spoke, and act as they acted upon it. This is all Republicans ask, all Repub- licans desire, in relation to slavery. As those fathers marked it, so let it again be marked, as an evil not to be . Addresses and Letters 123 extended, but to be tolerated and protected only be- cause of and so far as its actual presence among us makes that toleration and protection a necessity. Let all the guaranties those fathers gave it be not grudg- ingly, but fully and fairly maintained. For this Re- publicans contend, and with this, so far as I know or believe, they will be content. And now, if they would listen, — as I suppose they will not, — I would address a few words to the South- ern people. -I would say to them: You consider yourselves a rea- sonable and a just people; and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and justice you are not in- ferior to any other people. Still, when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us as reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to ‘‘Black Republicans.”’ In all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of ‘‘Black Republicanism”’ as the first thing to be attended to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite — lh- cense, so to speak — among you to be admitted or per- mitted to speak at all. Now, can you or not be pre- vailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify. You say we are sectional. Wedenyit. That makes an issue; and the burden of proof is upon you. You produce your proof; and what is it? Why, that our party has no existence in your section — gets no votes 124 Abraham Lincoln in your section. The fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If it does, then, in case we should, without change of principle, begin to get votes in your section, we should thereby cease to be sectional. You cannot escape this conclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide by it? If you are, you will probably soon find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall get votes in your section this very year. You will then 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 prima- rily 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 opposed and denounced as such. Meet us, then, on the question of whether our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section ; and so meet us as if it were possible that something may be said on our side. Do you accept the challenge? No! Then you really believe that the principle which “our fathers who framed the government under which we live” thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and in- dorse it again and again, upon their official oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as to demand your condemnation without a moment’s consideration. Addresses and Letters 125 Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warn- ing against sectional parties given by Washington in his Farewell Address. Less than eight years before Washington gave that warning he had, as President of the United States, approved and signed an act of Con- gress enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the North- western 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 sectionalism 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 sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon you, who repudiate it? We respect that warning of Washington, and we commend it to you, together with his example pointing to the right application of it. But you say you are conservative, — eminently con- servative, — while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by ‘‘our fathers who framed the government under which we live’; while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. 126 Abraham Lincoln True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new proposi- tions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional slave code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit slavery within their limits; some for maintaining slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the ‘‘our-reat pur-rinciple” that “if one man would en- slave another, no third man should object,” fantasti- cally called “popular sovereignty”; but never a man among you is in favor of Federal prohibition of slavery in Federal Territories, according to the practice of “‘our fathers who framed the government under which we live.””? Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge of destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations. Again, you say we have made the slavery question 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 not we, but you, who discarded the old policy of the fathers. We resisted, and still resist, your innovation; and thence comes the greater prominence of the question. Would you have that question reduced to its former proportions? Go back to that old policy. What has been will be again, under the same conditions. If you would have the peace of Addresses and Letters 127 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? Harp- er’s Ferry! John Brown! John Brown was no Re- publican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his Harper’s Ferry enterprise. If any member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are in- excusable for not designating the man and _ proving the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable for asserting 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 in a charge which one does not know to be true is simply malicious slander. Some of you admit that no Republican designedly alded or encouraged the Harper’s Ferry affair, but still insist that our doctrines and declarations necessarily lead to such results. We do not believe it. We know we hold no doctrine, and make no declaration, which were not held to and made by ‘‘our fathers who framed the government under which we live.’? You never dealt fairly by us in relation to this affair. When it occurred, some important State elections were near at hand, and you were in evident glee with the belief that, by charging the blame upon us, you could get an ad- vantage 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 128 Abraham Lincoln and declarations are accompanied with a continual pro- test 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 belief that slavery is wrong ; but the slaves do not hear us declare even this. For anything we say or do, the slaves would scarcely know there is a Republican party. I believe they would not, in fact, generally know it but for your misrepresenta- tions of us in their hearing. In your political contests among yourselves, each faction charges the other with sympathy with Black Republicanism; and then, to give point to the charge, defines Black 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 insurrection, twenty- eight years ago, in which at least three times as many lives were lost as at Harper’s Ferry? You can scarcely stretch your very elastic fancy to the conclusion that Southampton was ‘‘got up by Black 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 affection Addresses and Letters 129 of slaves for their masters and mistresses; and a part of it, at least, is true. A plot for an uprising could scarcely be devised and communicated to twenty individuals before some one of them, to save the life of a favorite master or mistress, would divulge it. This is the rule; and the slave revolution in Haiti was not an exception to it, but a case occurring under peculiar circumstances. The Gunpowder Plot of British history, though not connected with slaves, was more in point. In that case, only about twenty were admitted to the secret; and yet one of them, in his anxiety to save a friend, betrayed the plot to that friend, and, by consequence, averted the calamity. Occasional poisonings from the kitchen, and open or stealthy assassinations in the field, and local revolts extending to a score or so, will continue to oc- cur as the natural results of slavery; but no general insurrection of slaves, as I think, can happen in this country for a long time. Whoever much fears, or much hopes, for such an event, will be alike disappointed. In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, “It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably, and in such slow degrees as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their places be, pari passu,' filled up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up.” Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of emancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia; and, as to the power of emanci- 1 At equal pace; that is, at the same time. 130 Abraham Lincoln pation, I speak of the slaveholding States only. The Federal Government, however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the extension of the institution — the power to insure that a slave insurrection shall never occur on any American soil which is now free from slavery. John Brown’s effort was peculiar. It was not a slave insurrection. It was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves, in which the slaves refused to participate. In fact, it was so absurd that the slaves, - with all their ignorance, saw plainly enough it could not succeed. That affair, in its philosophy, 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 Napoleon, and John Brown’s attempt at Harper’s Ferry, were, in their philosophy, precisely the same. The eagerness to cast blame on Old England in the one case, and on New England in the other, does not disprove the sameness of the two things. And how much would it avail you if you could, by the use of John Brown, Helper’s book, and the like, break up the Republican organization? Human ac- tion can be modified to some extent, but human nature cannot be changed. There is a judgment and a feeling against slavery in this nation, which cast at least a 1 The plot to assassinate Napoleon III was hatched by foreigners residing in England; consequently, some Frenchmen called the English ‘‘ protectors of murderers.”’ Addresses and Letters 131 million and a half of votes... You cannot destroy that judgment and feeling — that sentiment — by break- ing up the political organization which rallies around it. You can scarcely scatter and disperse an army which has been formed into order in the face of your heaviest fire; but if you could, how much would you gain by forcing the sentiment which created it out of the peace- ful channel of the ballot-box into some other channel? What would that other channel probably be? Would the number of John Browns be lessened or enlarged by the operation? But you will break up the Union rather than submit to a denial of your constitutional rights. That has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would be palliated, if not fully justified, were we proposing, by the mere force of numbers, to deprive you of some right plainly written down in the Constitution. But we are proposing no such thing. When you make these declarations you have a spe- cific and well-understood allusion to an assumed consti- tutional 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, deny that such a right has any existence in the Constitution, even by i1m- plication. Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the government, unless you be allowed to con- strue and force the Constitution as you please, on all 1 Frémont in 1856 polled 1,340,000 votes; Lincoln, in 1860, polled 1,866,000. 132 Abraham Lincoln points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events. This, plainly stated, is your language. Perhaps 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 ina 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 decision was made in a sort of way, I mean it was made in a divided court, by a bare ma- jority of the judges, and they not quite agreeing with one another in the reasons for making it; that it is so made as that its avowed supporters disagree with one another about its meaning, and that it. was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact — the state- ment in the opinion that “the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Consti- tution.” An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of property in a slave is not “distinctly and ex- pressly affirmed” in it. Bear in mind, the judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that such right is im- pliedly affirmed in the Constitution; but they pledge their veracity that it is “distinctly and expressly”’ af- firmed there — “distinctly,” that is, not mingled with anything else; “expressly,” that is, in words meaning just that, without the aid of any inference, and sus- ceptible of no other meaning. If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that such right is affirmed in the instrument by implication, Addresses and Letters 13 it would be open to others to show that neither the word ‘‘slave”’ nor “slavery’’ is to be found in the Con- stitution, nor the word “property,” even, ‘in any con- nection 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 contemporaneous history, that this mode of alluding to slaves and slavery, instead of speak- ing of them, was employed on purpose to exclude from the Constitution the idea that there could be property in man. To show all this is easy and certain. When this obvious mistake of the judges shall be brought to their notice, is it not reasonable to expect that they will withdraw the mistaken statement, and reconsider the conclusion based upon it? And then it is to be remembered that ‘our fathers who framed the government under which we live”? — the men who made the Constitution — decided this same constitutional question in our favor long ago; decided it without division among themselves when making the decision; without division among them- selves about the meaning of it after it was made, and, so far as any evidence is left, without basing it upon any mistaken statement of facts. Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this government un- less such a court decision as yours is shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political 134 Abraham Lincoln action? But you will not abide the election of a Repub- lican President! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, “Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer !”’ To be sure, what the robber demanded of me — my money — was my own; and I had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote is my own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in prin- ciple. A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony one with another. Let us 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 uncondi- tionally surrendered to them’? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against us, the Terri- tories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insur- rections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and Addresses and Letters 135 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 abstain- ing 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 we must somehow convince them 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 begin- ning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly pro- tested 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 de- tected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them. These natural and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly — done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated — we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Sen- ator 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 atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us. I am quite aware they do not state their case pre- 136 Abraham Lincoln cisely in this way. Most of them would probably say to us, ‘Let us alone; do nothing to us, and say what you please about slavery.’’ But we do let them alone, — have never disturbed them, — so that, after all, it is what we say which dissatisfies them. They will con- tinue to accuse us of doing, until we cease saying. I am also aware they have not as yet in terms de- manded the overthrow of our Free-State constitutions. 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 ele- vating, they cannot cease to demand a full national recognition of it as a legal right and a social blessing. Nor can we justifiably withhold this on any ground save our conviction that slavery is wrong. If slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, and constitutions against it are themselves wrong, and should be silenced and swept away. If it is right, we cannot justly object to its nationality —its universality; if it is wrong they cannot justly insist upon its extension — its enlarge- ment. All they ask we could readily grant, if we thought slavery right; all we ask they could as readily grant, if they thought it wrong. Their thinking it -right and our thinking it wrong is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it Addresses and Letters 137 right, as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition as being right; but thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? Can we cast our votes with their view, and against our own? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we do this? Wrong as we think slavery is, we can eet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation ; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the national Territories, and to overrun us here in these free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty fearlessly and effec- tively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored, — contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man; such as a policy of “don’t care,’ on a question about which all true men do care ; such as Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the Divine rule, and calling not the sinners, but the righteous to repent- ance; such as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said, and undo what Washington did. Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by men- aces of 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. 138 Abraham Lincoln Letter to Thurlow Weed In the trying time between his election and inauguration Lincoln was beset by requests to state his policy. This letter is a typical reply. Thurlow Weed was the leader of the Republican organization in the state of New York and the supporter of William H. Seward. Springfield, Ill., December 17, 1860 Thurlow Weed, Esq. My pEAR Sir: Yours of the 11th was received two days ago. Should the convocation of governors of which you speak seem desirous to know my views on the present aspect of things, tell them you judge from my speeches that I will be inflexible on the territorial ques- tion; that I probably think either the Missouri line extended, or Douglas’s and Eli Thayer’s popular sover- eignty, would lose us everything we gain by the elec- tion; that filibustering for all south of us and making slave states of it would follow, in spite of us, in either case; also that I probably think all opposition, real and apparent, to the fugitive-slave clause of the Con- stitution ought to be withdrawn. I believe you can pretend to find but little, if any- thing, in my speeches about secession. But my opinion is that no state can in any way lawfully get out of the Union without the consent of the others; and that it is the duty of the President and other government functionaries to run the machine as it is. Truly yours, A. LINCOLN Addresses and Letters 139 Farewell Address at Springfield From the time he was nominated in May, 1860, until he left Springfield the following February to begin his journey to Washington, Lincoln preserved an almost complete si- lence. When asked to state his views, he pointed to the speeches he had already delivered. Meanwhile, because Buchanan was irresolute, and the Southern leaders aggres- sive, the nation was in a condition bordering on chaos. No one realized more than Lincoln the seriousness of the task to which he was ealled. This farewell to his neighbors was delivered from the rear platform of his train, in a drizzling rain, just before he began his journey to his inauguration. [February 11, 1861] My Frienps: No one, not in my situation, can appreciate my feeling of sadness at this parting. To this place, and the kindness of these people, I owe everything. Here I have lived a quarter of a century, and have passed from a young toanold man. Here my children have been born, and one is buried. / I now leave, not knowing when or whether ever I may return, with a task before me greater than that which rested upon Washington. Without the assistance of that Divine Being who ever attended him, I cannot succeed. With that assistance, I cannot fail.’ Trusting in Him who can go with me, and remain with you, and be everywhere for good, let us confidently hope that all will yet be well.) To His care commending you, as i hope in your prayers you will commend me, I bid you an affectionate farewell. 140 Abraham Lincoln Address in Independence Hall, Philadelphia As he proceeded on his journey, Lincoln stopped long enough at Indianapolis, Columbus, Cleveland, Buffalo, Utica, Albany, New York, Trenton, Philadelphia, and at many smaller places to speak to crowds. He was as anxious to meet the people as they were to see him. Getting nearer to the Capitol, he was warned of plots against his life. These were ferreted out by the Government detectives, who were convineed that plans had been carefully made to assassinate the President-elect before he could reach Washington. In fact Lincoln was well aware of the plots when he delivered this speech. [February 22, 1861] I am filled with deep emotion at finding myself standing in this place, where were collected together the wisdom, the patriotism, the devotion to principle, from which sprang the institutions under which we live. You have kindly suggested to me that in my hands is the task of restoring peace to our distracted country. I can say in return, sir, that all the political sentiments I entertain have been drawn, so far as I have been able to draw them, from the sentiments which originated in and were given to the world from this hall. I have never had a feeling, politically, that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Inde- pendence. I have often pondered over the dangers which were incurred by the men who assembled here and framed and adopted that Declaration. Ihave pondered over the toils that were endured by the officers and soldiers of the army who achieved that independence. I have often inquired of myself what great principle or Addresses and Letters 141 idea it was that kept this Confederacy so long together. It was not the mere matter of separation of the colonies from the motherland, but that sentiment in the Dec- laration of Independence which gave liberty not alone to the people of this country, but hope to all the world, for all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due time the weights would be lifted from the shoulders of all men, and that all should have an equal chance. This is the sentiment embodied in the Dec- laration of Independence. Now, my friends, can this country be saved on that basis? If it can, I will con- sider myself one of the happiest men in the world if I can help to save it. If it cannot be saved upon that principle, it will be truly awful. But if this country cannot be saved without giving up that principle, I was about to say I would rather be assassinated on this spot than surrender it. Now, in my view of the present aspect of affairs, there is no need of bloodshed and war. There is no necessity for it. I am not in favor of such a course; and I may say in advance that there will be no bloodshed unless it is forced upon the government. The government will not use force, unless force is used against it. My friends, this is wholly an unprepared speech. I did not expect to be called on to say a word when I came here. I supposed I was merely to do something toward raising a flag. I may, therefore, have said something indiscreet. [Cries of ‘‘No, no.’’] But I have said nothing but what I am willing to live by, and, if it be the pleasure of Almighty God, to die by. 142 Abraham Lincoln First Inaugural Address By the time he reached Baltimore, Lincoln was persuaded by General Scott and others that the plan to assassinate him was so thoroughly arranged that to pass through the city by day would be sheer folly. He therefore changed his plans, passed through Baltimore at night and arrived in Washington safely, and was peacefully inaugurated — General Scott had, of course, stationed sufficient infantry and artillery for any emergency —on the fourth of March, 1861. Beside him sat Senator Douglas, who took this opportunity to show his followers that he was determined to support the President. Lineoln had earefully prepared his speech the month before he left Springfield. His guides were the Constitution, Henry Clay’s speech in favor of the Compromise of 1850, President Jackson’s proclamation of 1833 against nullification in South Carolina, and Webster’s reply to Hayne in 1830. In spite of his efforts to allay the anxiety the South had expressed as to his attitude, Southern newspapers hailed the speech as a dec- laration of war. On the other hand, the lack of passion in his expression was a keen disappointment to many extremists in the North. [March 4, 1861] FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE UNITED States: In compli- ance with a custom as old as the government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly, and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President “before he enters on the execution of his office.” 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 Republican Boston. Photo by Curtis and Cameron StaTuE oF LIncoLN By Avacustus SaInt-GAuDENS, LINCOLN Park, CHICAGO. 7 — ‘i 7 aa = Ui Addresses and Letters 143 administration their property and their peace and per- sonal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. In- deed, 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 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 inclination to do so.”” Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And, more than this, they placed in the platform for my 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 institu- tions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the per- fection and endurance of our political fabric depend, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.” I now reiterate these sentiments; and, in doing so, I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently 144 Abraham Lincoln with the Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully de- manded, for whatever cause — as cheerfully to one sec- tion 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 labour in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be dis- charged from such service or labour, but shall be de- livered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.” It is scarcely questioned that this provision was in- tended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the law- giver 1s the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution — to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause “‘shall be delivered up,” their oaths are unani- mous. 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 au- thority ; but surely that difference is not a very ma- terial 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 any one in any case Addresses and Letters 145 be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept? Again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in 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 en- titled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States’? I take the official oath to-day with no mental reserva- tions, and with no purpose to construe the Constitu- tion 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 impunity in having them held to be unconstitu- tional. It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our National Constitution. Dur- ing that period fifteen different and greatly distin- guished citizens have, in succession, administered the executive branch of the government. They have con- ducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitu- tional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, hereto- fore only menaced, is now formidably attempted. 146 Abraham Lincoln I hold that, in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is per- petual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure for- ever — it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself. Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it — break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declara- tion of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And, finally, in 1787 one of the declared objects for ordaining and es- tablishing the Constitution was ‘‘to form a more per- fect Union.” But if the destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union Addresses and Letters 147 is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to cir- cumstances. I therefore consider that, in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the req- uisite means, 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 it- self. In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or vio- lence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts ; but beyond what may be neces- sary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States, in any interior locality, shall be so great and universal as to prevent 148 Abraham Lincoln competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of these officers, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable withal, that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such officers. The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be fur- nished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible, the people everywhere shall have that sense of per- fect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be fol- lowed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised ac- cording to circumstances actually existing, and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles andthe restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections. That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events, and are glad of any pretext to do it, I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak? Before entering upon so grave a matter as the de- struction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to as- certain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Addresses and Letters 149 Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from — will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake? All profess to be content in the Union if all consti- tutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in the Constitution, has been denied? I think not. Happily the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly writ- ten constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution — certainly would if such a right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them. But no or- ganic law can ever be framed with a provision specifi- cally applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can antici- pate, nor any document of reasonable length contain, express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Con- gress protect slavery in the Territories? The Con- stitution does not expressly say. From questions of this class spring all our constitu- tional controversies, and we divide upon them into 150 Abraham Lincoln majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease. There is no other alternative; for continuing the government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being edu- cated to the exact temper of doing this. Is there such a perfect identity of interest 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 checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sen- timents, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inad- missible ; so that, rejecting the majority principle, an- archy or despotism in some form is all that is left. I do not forget the position, assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Su- preme Court ; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding, in any case, upon the parties to a suit, as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to Addresses and Letters ISI very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect fol- lowing it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordi- nary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned 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 purposes. One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution, and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade, are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly 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 152 Abraham Lincoln be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived, without restriction, in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be sur- rendered at all by the other. Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We can- not 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 continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions as to terms of intercourse are again upon you. This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolution- ary 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 Constitu- tion amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority Addresses and Letters 153 of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument it- self; and I should, under existing circumstances, fa- vor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being af- forded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people . themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be pre- cisely such as they would wish to either accept or re- fuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution — which amendment, however, I have not seen — has passed Congress, to the effect that the Fed- eral Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of par- ticular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and ir- revocable. The chief magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have conferred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this also if they choose; but the Executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to 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 154 Abraham Lincoln 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 of the American people. By the frame of the government under which we live, this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief ; and have, with equal wis- dom, 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 of wickedness or folly, can very seriously in- jure the government in the short space of four years. My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time ; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Consti- tution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new adminis- tration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm re- liance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty. Addresses and Letters itis In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the govern- ment, while I shall have the most solemn one to “ pre- serve, protect, and defend it.” I am loath to close. Weare not enemies, but friends. | We must not be enemies. ‘Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle- field and patriot grave to every living heart and hearth- stone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature. Lincoln’s Reply to Secretary Seward Washington politicians had little confidence that the new president would prove able to command the difficult situation caused by secession. Secretary of State Seward shared this opinion of Lincoln and on April 1, less than four weeks after the inauguration, submitted a paper which he called Some Thoughts for the President’s Consideration. The paper read : ‘First. Weare at the end of a month’s administration, and yet without a policy either domestic or foreign. ‘Second. This, however, is not culpable, and it has even been unavoidable. The presence of the Senate, with the need to meet applications for patronage, have prevented attention to other and more grave matters. ‘“Third. But further delay to adopt and prosecute our policies for both domestic and foreign affairs would not only bring scandal on the administration, but danger upon the country. ‘*Fourth. To do this we must dismiss the applicants for 156 Abraham Lincoln office. But how? I suggest that we make the local appoint- ments forthwith, leaving foreign or general ones for ulterior and occasional action. ‘Fifth. Thepolicyathome. Iam aware that my views are singular, and perhaps not sufficiently explained. My system is built upon this idea as a ruling one, namely, that we must ‘Change the question before the public from one upon slavery, or about slavery, for a question upon union or disunion: ‘‘In other words, from what would be regarded as a party question, to one of patriotism or union. ‘““The occupation or evacuation of Fort Sumter, although not in fact a slavery or a party question, is so regarded. Wit- ness the temper manifested by the Republicans in the free states, and even by the Union men in the South. ‘‘T would therefore terminate it as a safe means for chang- ing the issue. I deem it fortunate that the last administra- tion created the necessity. ‘For the rest, I would simultaneously defend and reén- force all the ports in the gulf, and have the navy recalled from foreign stations to be prepared for a blockade. Put the island of Key West under martial law. ‘“This will raise distinctly the question of union or disunion. I would maintain every fort and possession in the South. For Foreign Nations ‘‘T would demand explanations from Spain and Franee, eategorically, at once. ‘*T would seek explanations from Great Britain and Russia, and send agents into Canada, Mexico, and Central America to rouse a vigorous continental spirit of independence on this continent against European intervention. ‘‘And, if satisfactory explanations are not received from Spain and France, would convene Congress and declare war against them. ‘‘But whatever policy we adopt, there must be energetic prosecution of it. ‘For this purpose it must be somebody’s business to pursue and direct it incessantly. Addresses and Letters Les ‘*Hither the President must do it himself, and be all the while active in it, or ‘*Devolve it on some member of his Cabinet. Once adopted, debates on it must end, and all agree and abide. It is not in my especial province. But I neither seek to evade nor to assume responsibility.” The same day Lincoln replied in this letter. It settled finally the question of who was to be the head of the nation. It is remarkable for the calmness with which the insane foreign policy of Seward is put aside. Some weeks later Seward wrote: ‘‘There is but one vote in the Cabinet, and that is cast by the President.’’ No one but Seward’s son and the President’s secretary knew of this incident; Lincoln had no wish for a public humiliation of his Secretary of State. Executive Mansion, April 1, 1861 Hon, W. H. Seward. My Dear Sir: Since parting with you I have been considering your paper dated this day, and entitled “Some Thoughts for the President’s Consideration.” The first proposition in it is, ‘‘ First, We are at the end of a month’s administration, and yet without a policy - either domestic or foreign.” At the beginning of that month, in the inaugural, I said: ‘‘The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts.”’ This had your distinct approval at the time; and, taken in connection with the order I im- mediately gave General Scott, directing him to employ every means in his power to strengthen and hold the forts, comprises the exact domestic policy you now urge, with the single exception that it does not propose to abandon Fort Sumter. 158 Abraham Lincoln Again, I do not perceive how the reénforcement of Fort Sumter would be done on a slavery or a party issue, while that of Fort Pickens would be on a more national and patriotic one. The news received yesterday in regard to St. Domingo certainly brings a new item within the range of our foreign policy ; but up to that time we have been pre- paring circulars and instructions to ministers and the like, all in perfect harmony, without even a suggestion that we had no foreign policy. Upon your closing propositions — that “whatever policy we adopt, there must be an energetic prosecution Olelts “For this purpose it must be somebody’s business to pursue and direct it incessantly.” “Hither the President must do it himself, and be all the while active in it, or “Devolve it on some member of his cabinet. Once adopted, debates on it must end, and all agree and abide’’ — I remark that if this must be done, I must do it. When a general line of policy is adopted, I appre- hend there is no danger of its being changed without good reason, or continuing to be a subject of unneces- sary debate; still, upon points arising in its progress I wish, and suppose I am entitled to have, the advice of all the cabinet. ; Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN Letter to Reverdy Johnson The hostility that Maryland showed toward the troops that were marching to Washington in response to Lincoln’s Addresses and Letters 159 eall for 75,000 militia, made one of the most difficult prob- lems at the beginning of the war. The city of Baltimore, in the hands of Southern partisans, mobbed the Sixth Mas- sachusetts, and the soldiers fired upon the mob. The Gov- ernor telegraphed Lincoln, ‘‘The excitement is fearful. Send no more troops here.’ Finally, arrangements were made to send the regiments arownd and not through the city. Reverdy Johnson was a prominent citizen of Maryland, and afterwards a United States Senator from his state. Executive Mansion, April 24, 1861 Hon. Reverdy Johnson. My pear Sir: Your note of this morning is just received. Iforbore to answer yours of the 22d because _of my aversion (which I thought you understood) to get- ting on paper and furnishing new grounds for misunder- standing. I do say the sole purpose of bringing troops here is to defend this capital. I do say I have no pur- pose to invade Virginia with them or any other troops, as I understand the word invasion. But, suppose Virginia sends her troops, or admits others through her borders, to assail this capital, am I not to repel them even to the crossing of the Potomac, if I can? Suppose Virginia erects, or permits to be erected, batteries on the opposite shore to bombard the city, are we to stand still and see it done? In a word, if Virginia strikes us, are we not to strike back, and as effectively as we can? Again, are we not to hold Fort Monroe (for instance) if we can? I have no objection to declare a thousand times that I have no purpose to invade Virginia or any other state, but I do not mean to let them invade us without striking back. Yours truly, A. LINCOLN 160 Abraham Lincoln Letter to Major Ramsey During the early stages of the war Lincoln had an abun- dance of people who would like to have been major-generals, but few who resembled this woman’s sons. October 17, 1861 My pear Sir: The lady bearer of this says she has two sons who want to work. Set them at it if possible. Wanting to work is so rare a want that it should be encouraged. Yours truly, A. LINCOLN Letter to O. H. Browning General Frémont — the Republican nominee for president in 1856 — was at this time commanding officer in the West- ern Department. He issued, without consulting Lincoln, an emancipation proclamation. Without censure, Lincoln asked him to revoke it, and upon his failure to do so Lincoln himself revoked it. O. H. Browning was a Republican member of the Senate who had been elected to fill the vacancy eaused by the death of Stephen A. Douglas. He was a strong supporter of the President. Nevertheless, he was one of those who wished to see Frémont made important in the war. The letter is notable for the indication Lincoln gives that despite all the tumult he will not abandon Constitutional government. About a month later, Frémont, who had given conclusive proof of incompetence, was relieved of his com- mand. [Private and Confidential] Executive Mansion, Washington, September 22, 1861 Hon. O. H. Browning. My pkar Sir: Yours of the 17th is just received ; and coming from you, I confess it astonishes me. That Addresses and Letters 161 you should object to my adhering to a law which you had assisted in making and presenting to me less than a month before is odd enough. But this is a very small part. General Frémont’s proclamation as to con- fiscation of property and the liberation of slaves is purely political and not within the range of military law or necessity. If a commanding general finds a necessity to seize the farm of a private owner for a pasture, an encampment, or a fortification, he has the right to do so, and to so hold it as long as the necessity lasts; and this is within military law, because within military necessity. But to say the farm shall no longer belong to the owner, or his heirs forever, and this as well when the farm is not needed for military purposes as when it is, is purely political, without the savor of military law about it. And the same is true of slaves. If the general needs them, he can seize them and use them; but when the need is past, it is not for him to fix their permanent future condition. That must be settled according to laws made by lawmakers, and not by military proclamations. The proclamation in the point in question is simply ‘‘dictatorship.”’ It assumes that the general may do anything he pleases — con- fiscate the lands and free the slaves of loyal people, as well as the disloyal ones. And going the whole figure, I have no doubt, would be more popular with some thoughtless people than that which has been done! But I cannot assume this reckless position, nor allow others to assume it on my responsibility. | You speak of it as being the only means of saving the government. On the contrary, it is itself the surrender of the government. Can it be pretended that it is any 162 Abraham Lincoln longer the Government of the United States — any government of constitution and laws— wherein a general or a president may make permanent rules of property by proclamation? I do not say Congress might not with propriety pass a law on the point, just such as General Frémont proclaimed. I do not say I might not, as a member of Congress, vote for it. What I object to is, that I, as President, shall expressly or impliedly seize and exercise the permanent legislative functions of the government. So much as to principle. Now as to policy. No doubt the thing was popular in some quarters, and would have been more so if it had been a general dec- laration of emancipation. The Kentucky legislature would not budge till that proclamation was modified ; and General Anderson telegraphed me that on the news of General Frémont having actually issued deeds of manumission, a whole company of our volunteers threw down their arms and disbanded. I was so assured as to think it probable that the very arms we had furnished Kentucky would be turned against us. I think to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game. Kentucky gone, we cannot hold Missouri, nor, as I think, Maryland. These all against us, and the job on our hands is too large for us. We would as well consent to separation at once, including the surrender of this capital. On the contrary, if you will give up your restlessness for new positions, and back me manfully on the grounds upon which you and other kind friends gave me the election and have approved in my public documents, we shall go through triumphantly. You must not understand I took my course on the proclama- Addresses and Letters 163 tion because of Kentucky. I took the same ground in a private letter to General Frémont before I heard from Kentucky. You think I am inconsistent because I did not also forbid General Frémont to shoot men under the procla- mation. I understand that part to be within military law, but I also think, and so privately wrote General Frémont, that it is impolitic in this, that our adversaries have the power, and will certainly exercise it, to shoot as many of our men as we shoot of theirs. I did not say this in the public letter, because it is a subject I prefer not to discuss in the hearing of our enemies. There has been no thought of removing General Fré- mont on any ground connected with his proclamation, and if there has been any wish for his removal on any ground, our mutual friend Sam. Glover can probably tell you what it was. I hope no real necessity for it exists on any ground. Your friend, as ever, A. LINCOLN Letter to General Hunter General David Hunter had been placed in command of the Department of the West to succeed Frémont, in Novem- ber just preceding this letter. He was afterwards made commanding officer of the Department of the South, in which capacity he issued an emancipation proclamation similar to Frémont’s, which as in Frémont’s case, Lincoln revoked. After Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation, Hunter organized negro regiments and was in consequence declared an out- law by Jefferson Davis. This letter is one of many that the President had to write to his generals before he found men big enough to see what was expected of them. 164 Abraham Lincoln Executive Mansion, Washington, December 31, 1861 Dear Srr: Yours of the 23d is received, and I am constrained to say it is difficult to answer so ugly a letter in good temper. I am, as you intimate, losing much of the great confidence I placed in you, not from any act or omission of yours touching the public service, up to the time you were sent to Leavenworth, but from the flood of grumbling dispatches and letters I have seen from you since. I knew you were being ordered to Leavenworth at the time it was done; and I aver that with as tender a regard for your honor and your sensibilities as I had for my own, it never occurred to me that you were being ‘‘humiliated, insulted, and dis- graced !”’ nor have I, up to this day, heard an intima- tion that you have been wronged, coming from any one but yourself. No one has blamed you for the retrograde movement from Springfield, nor for the information you gave General Cameron; and this you could readily understand, if it were not for your unwarranted as- sumption that the ordering you to Leavenworth must necessarily have been done as a punishment for some fault. I thought then, and think yet, the position assigned to you is as responsible, and as honorable, as that assigned to Buell—I know that General McClellan expected more important results from it. My impression is that at the time you were assigned to the new Western Department, it had not been deter- mined to replace General Sherman in Kentucky; but of this I am not certain, because the idea that a com- mand in Kentucky was very desirable, and one in the farther West undesirable, had never occurred to me. Addresses and Letters 165 You constantly speak of being placed in command of only 3000. Now tell me, is this not mere impatience? Have you not known all the while that you are to com- mand four or five times that many? I have been, and am sincerely your friend; and if, as such, I dare to make a suggestion, I would say you are adopting the best possible way to ruin yourself. “Act well your part, there all the honor hes.’? He who does something at the head of one regiment, will eclipse him who does nothing at the head of a hundred. Your friend, as ever, A. LINCOLN Letter to General George B. McClellan General McClellan was the greatest disappointment that Lincoln experienced among his generals (see Introduction). Summoned from the West after the disaster at Bull Run, he organized the Army of the Potomac until it was a splendid military organization, but he did nothing with it. He wasted all of the autumn and winter of 1861-62 while the Confederate flag floated in sight of the capitol. Lincoln at last issued an order himself for an advance on February 22. McClellan made a counter proposal, and this is Lincoln’s reply. It was not until the opposing Confederate force had actually retreated that McClellan advanced. Lincoln then removed him from his high command of general of all the forces of the United States, but retained him as commander of the Army of the Potomac (March 11, 1862). Executive Mansion, Washington, February 3, 1862 Major-General McClellan. My pEAR Stir: Youand I have distinct and different plans for a movement of the Army of the Potomac — yours to be down the Chesapeake, up the Rappahannock 166 Abraham Lincoln to Urbana, and across land to the terminus of the rail- road on the York River; mine to move directly to a point on the railroad southwest of Manassas. If you will give me satisfactory answers to the fol- lowing questions, I shall gladly yield my plan to yours. First. Does not your plan involve a greatly larger expenditure of time and money than mine? Second. Wherein is a victory more certain by your plan than mine? Third. Wherein is a victory more valuable by your plan than mine? Fourth. In fact, would it not be less valuable in this, that it would break no great line of the enemy’s communications, while mine would? Fifth. In case of disaster, would not a retreat be more difficult by your plan than mine? Yours truly, ABRAHAM LINCOLN Letter to Reverdy Johnson | Private] In the spring of 1862 the Union generals in the Department of the South began to organize negro troops. In one year 130,000 negroes were added to the forces as soldiers, seamen, and laborers. The border states were enraged by this policy, but the President determined not to abandon his course. The following letter was written during the period of McClel- lan’s discouraging Peninsula: campaign. Executive Mansion, Washington, July 26, 1862 Hon. Reverdy Johnson. My DEAR Str: Yours of the 16th, by the hand of Governor Shepley, is received. It seems the Union Addresses and Letters 167 feeling in Louisiana is being crushed out by the course of General Phelps.! Please pardon me for believing that is a false pretense. The people of Louisiana — all intelligent people everywhere — know full well that I never had a wish to touch the foundations of their society, or any right of theirs. With perfect knowledge of this they forced a necessity upon me to send armies among them, and it is their own fault, not mine, that they are annoyed by the presence of General Phelps. They also know the remedy — know how to be cured of General Phelps. Remove the necessity for his presence. And might it not be well for them to consider whether they have not already had time enough to do this? If they can conceive of anything worse than General Phelps within my power, would they not better be look- ing out for it? They very well know the way to avert all this is simply to take their place in the Union upon the old terms. If they will not do this, should they not receive harder blows rather than lighter ones? You are ready to say I apply to friends what is due only to enemies. I distrust the wisdom if not the sincerity of friends who would hold my hands while my enemies stabme. This appeal of professed friends has paralyzed me more in this struggle than any other one thing. You remember telling me, the day after the Baltimore mob in April, 1861, that it would crush all Union feeling in Maryland for me to attempt bringing troops over Maryland soil to Washington. I brought the troops notwithstanding, and yet there was Union feeling enough left to elect a legislature the next autumn, which in 1 General Phelps was recruiting negro troops in Louisiana. 168 Abraham Lincoln turn elected a very excellent Union United States sena- tor!! I ama patient man — always willing to forgive on the Christian terms of repentance, and also to give ample time for repentance. Still, I must save this government, if possible. What I cannot do, of course I will not do, but it may as well be understood, once for all, that I shall not surrender this game leaving any available card unplayed. Yours truly, A. LINCOLN Telegram to Governor Andrew War Department, Washington City, D. C. August 12, 1862 Governor Andrew, Boston, Mass.: Your des- patch saying “I can’t get those regiments off because I can’t get quick work out of the U. 8. disbursing officer and the paymaster”’ is received. Please say to these gentlemen that if they do not work quickly I will make quick work with them. In the name of all that is reasonable, how long does it take to pay a couple of regiments? We were never more in need of the arrival of regiments than now — even to-day. A. LINCOLN Letter to Horace Greeley The summer of 1862 was a dreary time for the North. MeClellan’s Peninsular campaign against Richmond ended in a retreat and McClellan was removed. A second battle of Bull Run followed and ended in a complete rout of the Northern Army. Meanwhile, the powerful warship Alabama 1 Reverdy Johnson himself. See Lincoln’s letter to him dated April 24, 1861. Addresses and Letters 169 had escaped from Liverpool to prey upon Union commerce. In the midst of this, Horace Greeley published in the New York Tribune an open letter addressed to ‘‘Abraham Lin- coln, President of the United States.’’ Two columns of the newspaper were used to serve notice upon the President that the people of the North ‘‘were deeply pained by the policy you seem to be pursuing with regard to the slaves of rebels.”’ ‘*You never give a direction,’’ the letter continued, ‘‘ which does not appear to have been conceived in the interest of Slavery rather than that of Freedom.’’ And, “‘we require of you, as the first servant of the Republic, that you EXECUTE THE LAWS.”’ Immediately upon reading the letter, Lincoln telegraphed this reply to Greeley. It should be noted that one month before this (July 22) the President had read a draft of an emancipation proclamation to his cabinet and was delaying the issue of it only until the Union forces should win a vic- tory. In the circumstances the restraint of the letter is ex- traordinary. It stirred the North to rally to the support of the government. Executive Mansion, Washington, August 22, 1862 Hon. Horace Greeley. Dear Sir: I have just read yours of the 19th, ad- dressed to myself through the New York Tribune. If there be in it any statements or assumptions of fact which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not, now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right. As to the policy I “seem to be pursuing,’ as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt. 170 Abraham Lincoln I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored, the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I-shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors, and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. Yours, A. LINCOLN Telegrams to McClellan On August 30, 1862, McClellan had been shelved and left in command of only a small portion of the Army of the Poto- mac, the main part going to General Pope. The latter was ‘ZOST ‘F 19q0}00 ‘ovM0}0g sy} Jo Avy ‘sIoJAeNbproyy ‘NVLOILNY LV NTIOONT'T Addresses and Letters 171 fearfully thrashed at the Second Battle of Bull Run, and McClellan again given command. Meanwhile, Lee’s ragged army, singing ‘‘Maryland, my Maryland,” crossed the Potomac; McClellan met them at Antietam Creek, Septem- ber 16. The Day before the Battle September 15, 1862 2:45 p.m. Masor-GENERAL McCLeLLAN: Your despatch of to-day received. God bless you and all with you. Destroy the rebel army if possible. A. LINCOLN Fie Weeks after the Battle McClellan had again relapsed into inactivity. October 24, 1862 Mayor-GENERAL McCiLeLuAn: I have just read your dispatch about sore-tongued and fatigued horses. Will you pardon me for asking what the horses of your army have done since the battle of Antietam that fatigues anything? A. LINCOLN But the kindly President could not for long harbor im- patience. Executive Mansion, Washington October 26, 1862 11:30 a.m. Masor-GENERAL McCLELLAN: Yours in reply to mine about horses received. Of course you know the facts better than I; still, two considerations remain. Stuart’s cavalry outmarched yours, having certainly done more marked service in the Peninsula and every- 172 Abraham Lincoln where since. Secondly, will not a movement of our army be a relief to the cavalry, compelling the enemy to concentrate instead of foraging in squads everywhere? But I am so rejoiced to learn from your despatch to General Halleck that you begin crossing the river this morning. A. LINCOLN Reply to a Committee from the Religious De- nominations of Chicago This letter indicates the President’s determination to test the supporters of emancipation by forcing them to face the other side of the question. As a matter of fact, his mind was made up, and only nine days later, in cabinet meeting, he read his warning proclamation. In the interval McClellan had won the bloody battle of Antietam and Lee had retreated from Maryland. [September 13, 1862] The subject presented in the memorial is one upon which I have thought much for weeks past, and I may even say for months. I am approached with the most opposite opinions and advice, and that by religious men who are equally certain that they represent the divine will. I am sure that either the one or the other class is mistaken in that belief, and perhaps in some respects both. I hope it will not be irreverent for me to say that if it is probable that God would reveal His will to others on a point so connected with my duty, it might be supposed He would reveal it directly to me; for, unless | am more deceived in myself than I often am, it is my earnest desire to know the will of Providence in this matter. And if I can learn what Addresses and Letters 173 it is, I will do it. These are not, however, the days of miracles, and I suppose it will be granted that I am not to expect a direct revelation. I must study the plain physical facts of the case, ascertain what is possible, and learn what appears to be wise and right. The subject is difficult, and good men do not agree. For instance, the other day four gentlemen of standing and intelligence from New York called as a delegation on business connected with the war; but, before leaving, two of them earnestly beset me to proclaim general emancipation, upon which the other two at once attacked them. You know also that the last session of Congress had a decided majority of anti- slavery men, yet they could not unite on this policy. And the same is true of the religious people. Why, the rebel soldiers are praying with a great deal more earnestness, I fear, than our own troops, and expect- ing God to favor their side; for one of our soldiers who had been taken prisoner told Senator Wilson a few days since that he met with nothing so discouraging as the evident sincerity of those he was among in their prayers. But we will talk over the merits of the case. What good would a proclamation of emancipation from me do, especially as we are now situated? I do not want to issue a document that the whole world will see must necessarily be inoperative, like the Pope’s bull against the comet. Would my word free the slaves, when I cannot even enforce the Constitution in the rebel States? Is there a single court, or magistrate, or individual that would be influenced by it there? And what reason is there to think it would have any greater effect upon the slaves than the late law of 174 Abraham Lincoln Congress, which I approved, and which offers protection and freedom to the slaves of rebel masters who come within our lines? Yet I cannot learn that that law has caused a single slave to come over to us. And suppose they could be induced by a proclamation of freedom from me to throw themselves upon us, what should we do with them? How can we feed and care for such a multitude? General Butler! wrote me a few days since that he was issuing more rations to the slaves who have rushed to him than to all the white troops under his command. They eat, and that is all; though it is true General Butler is feeding the whites also by the thousand, for it nearly amounts to afamine there. If, now, the pressure of the war should call off our forces from New Orleans to defend some other point, what is to prevent the masters from re- ducing the blacks to slavery again? For I am told that whenever the rebels take any black prisoners free or slave, they immediately auction them off. They did so with those they took from a boat that was aground in the Tennessee River a few days ago. And then I am very ungenerously attacked for it! For instance, when, after the late battles at and near Bull Run,’ an expedition went out from Washington under a flag of truce to bury the dead and bring in the wounded, and the rebels seized the blacks who went along to help, and sent them into slavery, Horace Greeley said in his paper that the government would probably do nothing about it. What. could I do? Now, then, tell me, if you please, what possible 1 Union general in command at New Orleans. 2 The rout of August 29, 1862. Addresses and Letters L75 result of good would follow the issuing of such a proc- lamation as you desire? Understand, I raise no ob- jections against it on legal or constitutional grounds; for, as commander-in-chief of the army and navy, in time of war I suppose I have a right to take any meas- ure which may best subdue the enemy; nor do I urge objections of a moral nature, in view of possible consequences of insurrection and massacre at the South. I view this matter as a practical war measure, to be decided on according to the advantages or dis- advantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion. I admit that slavery is the root of the rebellion, or at least its sine qua non.1 The ambition of politicians may have instigated them to act, but they would have been impotent without slavery as their instrument. I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe,? and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition. I grant, further, that it would help somewhat at the North, though not so much, I fear, as you and those you represent imagine. Still, some additional strength would be added in that way to the war, and then, unquestionably, it would weaken the rebels by drawing off their laborers, which is of great importance; but I am not so sure we could do much with the blacks. If we were to arm them, I fear that in a few weeks the arms would be in the hands of the rebels; and, indeed, thus far we have not had arms enough to equip our white troops. I will mention another thing, though it meet only your 1 Hssential : literally ‘‘ without which, nothing.” 2 Especially in England. 176 Abraham Lincoln scorn and contempt. There are fifty thousand bayo- nets in the Union armies from the border slave States. - It would be a serious matter if, in consequence of a proclamation such as you desire, they should go over to the rebels. I do not think they all would — not so many, indeed, as a year ago, or as six months ago — not so many to-day as yesterday. Every day increases their Union feeling. They are also getting their pride enlisted, and want to beat the rebels. Let me say one thing more: I think you should admit that we already have an important principle to rally and unite the people, in the fact that constitutional government is at stake. This is a fundamental idea going down about as deep as anything. Do not misunderstand me because I have mentioned these objections. They indicate the difficulties that have thus far prevented my action in some such way as you desire. J have not decided against a proclama- tion of liberty to the slaves, but hold the matter under advisement; and I can assure you that the subject is on my mind, by day and night, more than any other. Whatever shall appear to be God’s will, I will do. I trust that in the freedom with which I have can- vassed your views I have not in any respect injured your feelings. Letter to Carl Schurz During the disheartening autumn of 1862 Carl Schurz, a brigadier-general in the West, joined those who wished to point out to the President just what he should do. Schurz’s remedy was to dismiss political opponents from the army and remove them from councils. He wrote Lincoln on No- vember 8, and again on the 20th. In his Reminiscences he Addresses and Letters iyly, tells of meeting Lincoln later in Washington. ‘‘He greeted me cordially as of old and bade me pull up a chair and sit by his side. Then he brought his large hand with a slap down on my knee and said with a smile: ‘Now tell me, young man, whether you really think that I am as poor a fellow as you have made me out in your letter!’’’ The career of Carl Schurz is important and interesting enough to be looked up. As late as 1900 he was a vigorous figure in political life. Executive Mansion, Washington November 24, 1862 General Carl Schurz. My pear Sir: I have just received and read your letter of the 20th. The purport of it is that we lost the late elections and the Administration is failing be- cause the war is unsuccessful, and that I must not flatter myself that I am not justly to blame for it. I certainly know that if the war fails, the Administra- tion fails, and that I will be blamed for it, whether I deserve it or not. And I ought to be blamed if I could do better. You think I could do better; therefore you blame me already. I think I could not do better ; therefore I blame you for blaming me. I understand you now to be willing to accept the help of men who are not Republicans, provided they have ‘‘heart in it.” Agreed. I want no others. But who is to be the judge of hearts, or of “heart in it’? If I must discard my own judgment and take yours, I must also take that of others; and by the time I should reject all I should be advised to reject, I should have none left, Republicans or others — not even yourself. For be assured, my dear sir, there are men who have “heart in it” that think you are performing your part as poorly 178 Abraham Lincoln as you think I am performing mine. I certainly have been dissatisfied with the slowness of Buell and McClellan; but before I relieved them I had great fears I should not find successors to them who would do better; and I am sorry to add that I have seen little since to relieve those fears.1 I do not clearly see the prospect of any more rapid movements. I fear we shall at last find out that the difficulty is in our case rather than in particular gen- erals. I wish to disparage no one — certainly not those who sympathize with me, but I must say I need success more than I need sympathy, and that I have not seen the so much greater evidence of getting success from my sympathizers than from those who are denounced as the contrary. It does seem to me that in the field the two classes have been very much alike in what they have done and what they have failed to do. In sealing their faith with their blood, Baker and Lyon and Bohlen and Richardson, Republicans, did all that men could do ; but did they any more than Kearny and Stevens and Reno and Mansfield, none of whom were Republicans, and some at least of whom have been bitterly and re- peatedly denounced to me as secession sympathizers? I will not perform the ungrateful task of comparing cases of failure. In answer to your question, “‘ Has it not been publicly stated in the newspapers, and apparently proved as a fact, that from the commencement of the war the enemy was continually supplied with information by some of the confidential subordinates of as important an 1 Pope, who relieved McClellan, was beaten at Bull Run, August 29 and 30, 1862. Addresses and Letters 179 officer as Adjutant-General Thomas?”’ I must say “No,” as far as my knowledge extends. And I add that if you can give any tangible evidence upon the subject, I will thank you to come to this city and do so. Very truly your friend, A. LINCOLN Lincoln and the Deserters A ease typical of hundreds that Lincoln had to deal with; and a conclusion characteristic of him. Executive Mansion, Washington, November 3, 1863 Masor-GENERAL Mrapb, ARMY OF THE POTOMAC: Samuel Wellers, private in Company B, Forty-ninth Pennsylvania Volunteers, writes that he is to be shot for desertion on the 6th instant. His own story is rather a bad one, and yet he tells it so frankly that I am somewhat interested in him. Has he been a good soldier except for the desertion? About how old is he? A. LINCOLN Executive Mansion, Washington, November 5, 1863 Masor-GENERAL Mrapr, ARMY OF THE POTOMAC: Please suspend the execution of Samuel Wellers, Forty- ninth Pennsylvania Volunteers, until further orders. A. LINCOLN Letter to General N. P. Banks The following letter explains itself and is a sample of the sort of military strategy that Lincoln was quick to judge with irresistible common sense. General Banks was bound for New Orleans. 180 Abraham Lincoln Executive Mansion, Washington, November 22, 1862 My DEAR GENERAL BANKs: Early last week you left me in high hope with your assurance that you would be off with your expedition at the end of that week, or early in this. It is now the end of this, and I have just been overwhelmed and confounded with the sight of a requisition made by you which, I am assured, cannot be filled and got off within an hour short of two months. I inclose you a copy of the requisition, in some hope that it is not genuine — that you have never seen it. My dear General, this expanding and piling up of im- pedimenta has been, so far, almost our ruin, and will be our final ruin if it is not abandoned. If you had the articles of this requisition upon the wharf, with the nec- essary animals to make them of any use, and forage for the animals, you could not get vessels together in two weeks to carry the whole, to say nothing of your twenty thousand men; and, having the vessels, you could not put the cargoes aboard in two weeks more. And, after all, where you are going you have no use for them. When you parted with me you had no such idea in your mind. I know you had not, or you could not have expected to be off so soon as you said. You must get back to something like the plan you had then, or your expedition is a failure before you start. You must be off before Congress meets. You would be better off anywhere, and especially where you are going, for not having a thousand wagons doing nothing but hauling forage to feed the animals that draw them, and taking at least two thousand men to care for the wagons and animals, who otherwise might be two thousand good soldiers. Now, dear General, do not think this an Addresses and Letters I8I ill-natured letter; it is the very reverse. The simple publication of this requisition would ruin you. Very truly your friend, A. LINCOLN _ Letter to William H. Seward and Salmon P. Chase Seward and Chase had a stormy time of it in the cabinet. A Senate faction supporting Chase demanded Seward’s res- ignation. Seward resigned, and then Chase followed. Lin- ecoln could spare neither. Remarking privately that he now had a pumpkin on each side of his saddle and could ride, he wrote this letter. Executive Mansion, Washington, December 20, 1862 Hon. William H. Seward and Hon. Salmon P. Chase. GENTLEMEN: You have respectively tendered tome your resignations as Secretary of State and Secretary of the Treasury of the United States. I am apprised of the circumstances which may render this course per- sonally desirable to each of you; but after most anxious consideration my deliberate judgment is that the public interest does not admit of it. I therefore have to request that you will resume the duties of your de- partments respectively. Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN Emancipation Proclamation From the standpoint of history, the Emancipation Proc- lamation takes rank with such documents as Magna Charta, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence as a charter of human freedom. But Lincoln, much as he desired that men everywhere could be free, issued this proclamation 182 Abraham Lincoln simply as a blow at the South. In his annual message of December, 1861, he had recommended compensated eman- cipation: that is, a plan by which slaves could be bought by the government from their owners and then given their free- dom. He revoked an emancipation proclamation that had been issued by General Frémont and another by General Hunter. He was not in sympathy with John Brown or other Abolitionists. In fact, it must not be forgotten, these latter were a very small minority of the North, the majority opinion being in favor of letting the South have their slaves. The country was not ready for extreme measures in 1861. By July 22, 1862, however, Lincoln had given up the hope of gradual emancipation, and decided upon a proclamation. Seward urged delay because of the failure of the Peninsula campaign. Five days after the success at Antietam in Sep- tember, Lincoln called the Cabinet together and after reading them a portion of a book of humor by Artemus Ward, suddenly turned grave and announced his determination to issue a proclamation. This warning was followed in due course by the final proclamation of January 1, 1863. The most important effect was the change in England’s feeling toward us. Recognition of the South was now im- possible. The starving factory hands of English cities who could not understand a war for ‘‘the Union,’”’ could sym- pathize with a war against human slavery. The net result for the Army was an increase of some 180,000 men before the end of the war. The South retaliated by declaring outlaws the white officers who led negro troops. The movement for emancipation grew, nevertheless, and before Lincoln’s death Congress had passed the Thirteenth Amendment, and it was ratified by the legislatures of the states before the end of 1865. [January 1, 1863] Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the Presi- Addresses and Letters 183 dent of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit: That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any state, or designated part of a state, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive 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 repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom. That the executive will, on the first day of January afore- said, by proclamation, designate the states and parts of states, if any, in which the people thereof respectively shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any state, or the people thereof, shall on that day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such state shall have participated, shall in the absence of strong countervailing testimony be deemed con- clusive evidence that such state and the people thereof are not then in rebellion against the United States. Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President 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 government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary 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, publicly proclaimed for the full period of 100 days from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as 184 Abraham Lincoln the states and parts of states wherein the people thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellion 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, Terre Bonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Ala- bama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Caro- lina, and Virginia (except the forty-eight counties desig- nated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued. And by virtue of the power and for the purpose afore- said, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated states and parts of states are, and henceforward 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 faithfully 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. Addresses and Letters 185 And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of man- kind and the gracious favor of Almighty God. In witness, ete. ABRAHAM LINCOLN Bythe President : W1LL1AM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State Letter to General John A. McClernand No evidence has ever been brought forth to show that Lincoln ever changed his attitude toward the Southern people expressed in his Peoria speech (p. 12). Nevertheless, in the heat and passion of a Civil War it was natural that the Emancipation Proclamation (and especially that part which invited the negroes to join the Union Army) should arouse violent protest. It is interesting to note that General Mc- Clernand was an old friend of Linecoln’s who belonged to the Springfield group that included Douglas, O. H. Browning, and Trumbull. Executive Mansion, Washington, January 8, 1863 Major-General McClernand. My pEeAR Sir: Your interesting communication by the hand of Major Scates is received. I never did ask more, nor ever was willing to accept less, than for all the states, and the people thereof, to take and hold their places and their rights in the Union, under the Constitution of the United States. For this alone have I felt authorized to struggle, and I seek neither more nor less now. Still, to use a coarse but an expressive figure, “broken eggs cannot be mended.” I have issued the Emancipation Proclamation, and I cannot retract it. After the commencement of hostilities, I struggled 186 Abraham Lincoln nearly a year and a half to get along without touching the ‘‘institution”’; and when finally I conditionally de- termined to touch it, I gave a hundred days’ fair notice of my purpose to all the states and people, within which time they could have turned it wholly aside by simply again becoming good citizens of the United States. They chose to disregard it, and I made the peremp- tory proclamation on what appeared to me to be a mili- tary necessity. And being made, it must stand. As to the states not included in it, of course they can have their rights in the Union as of old. Even the people of the states included, if they choose, need not to be hurt by it. Let them adopt systems of apprenticeship for the colored people, conforming substantially to the most approved plans of gradual emancipation; and with the aid they can have from the General Government they may be nearly as well off, in this respect, as if the present trouble had not occurred, and much better off than they can possibly be if the contest continues persistently. As to any dread of my having a “purpose to enslave or exterminate the whites of the South,’’ I can scarcely believe that such dread exists. It is too absurd. I believe you can be my personal witness that no man is less to be dreaded for undue severity in any case. If the friends you mention really wish to have peace upon the old terms, they should act at once. Every day makes the case more difficult. They.can so act with entire safety, so far as I am concerned. I think you had better not make this letter public; but you may rely confidently on my standing by what- Addresses and Letters 187 ever I have said in it. Please write me if anything more comes to light. Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN Letter to Manchester Workingmen The Civil War, and in particular, the Union blockade of Southern ports was a severe blow to the workingmen of the factory districts of England. The supply of raw cotton shut off, factories closed, unemployment and distress followed. The feeling against the North was changed, however, by Lincoln’s preliminary proclamation of September, and a tide of anti-slavery sentiment set in. On New Year’s Eve, the night before the final proclamation was to take effect, public meetings were held in the large cities, and at Manchester, six thousand workingmen, with great enthusiasm, adopted an address to President Lincoln. This is Lincoln’s reply. Executive Mansion, Washington, January 19, 1863 To THE WORKINGMEN OF MANCHESTER: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the address and resolutions which you sent me on the eve of the new year. When I came, on the 4th of March, 1861, through a free and constitutional election to preside in the government of the United States, the country was found at the verge of civil war. Whatever might have been the cause, or whosesoever the fault, one duty, paramount to all others, was before me, namely, to maintain and preserve at once the Constitution and the integrity of the federal republic. A conscientious purpose to perform this duty is the key to all the measures of administration which have been and to all which will hereafter be pursued, Under our frame of 188 Abraham Lincoln government and my official oath, I could not depart from this purpose if I would. It is not always in the power of governments to enlarge or restrict the scope of moral results which follow the policies that they may deem it necessary for the public safety from time to time to adopt. I have understood well that the duty of self-preserva- tion rests solely with the American people; but I have at the same time been aware that favor or disfavor of foreign nations might have a material influence in en- larging or prolonging the struggle with disloyal men in which the country is engaged. A fair examination of history has served to authorize a belief that the past actions and influences of the United States were gen- erally regarded as having been beneficial toward man- kind. I have, therefore, reckoned upon the forbearance of nations. Circumstances — to some of which you kindly allude — induce me especially to expect that if justice and good faith should be practiced by the United States, they would encounter no hostile influence on the part of Great Britain. It is now a pleasant duty to acknowledge the demonstration you have given of your desire that a spirit of amity and peace toward this country may prevail in the councils of your Queen, who is respected. and esteemed in your own country only more than she is by the kindred nation which has its home on this side of the Atlantic. I know and deeply deplore the sufferings which the workingmen at Manchester, and in all Europe, are called to endure in this crisis. It has been often and studiously represented that the attempt to overthrow this government, which was built upon the foundation Addresses and Letters 189 of human rights, and to substitute for it one which should rest exclusively on the basis of human slavery, was likely to obtain the favor of Europe. Through the action of our disloyal citizens, the workingmen of Europe have been subjected to severe trials, for the purpose of forcing their sanction to that attempt. Under the circumstances, I cannot but regard your decisive utterances upon the question as an instance of sublime Christian heroism which has not been surpassed in any age or in any country. It is indeed an energetic and reinspiring assurance of the inherent power of truth, and of the ultimate and universal triumph of justice, humanity, and freedom. I do not doubt that the sentiments you have expressed will be sustained by your great nation; and, on the other hand, I have no hesitation in assuring you that they will excite admira- tion, esteem, and the most reciprocal feelings of friend- ship among the American people. I hail this inter- change of sentiment, therefore, as an augury that whatever else may happen, whatever misfortunes may befall your country or my own, the peace and friend- ship which now exist between the two nations will be, as it shall be my desire to make them, perpetual. ABRAHAM LINCOLN Letter to Joseph Hooker When McClellan, after the battle of Antietam, refused to follow up his victory, but let Lee place himself between the Union Army and Richmond, Lincoln removed him. The new commander, Burnside, determined upon a frontal attack on the entrenched position of Fredericksburg. The slaughter of the Union troops in this attack was frightful. Burnside was then removed and Hooker placed in command. Hooker 190 Abraham Lincoln had been an outspoken critic of both McClellan and Burn- side. The latter had, in fact, prepared an order removing Hooker because he lacked ‘‘moderation, forbearance, and unselfish patriotism.’”’ Talk about Hooker leading a mutiny, and setting himself up as dictator, was current in Washing- ton. Remarking to a friend, ‘‘Hooker talks badly, but the trouble is he is stronger with the country to-day than any other man,’ Lincoln gave him the command. Hooker, unfor- tunately for the North, was no match for Lee and Stonewall Jackson. At Chancellorsville, early in May, the Union army suffered another terrible defeat. Two months later, a few days before Gettysburg, Lincoln relieved Hooker and gave the command to Meade. Hooker afterward went to Chattanooga and won a brilliant success upon Lookout Mountain. Executive Mansion, Washington, January 26, 1863 Major-General Hooker. GENERAL: I have placed you at the head of the Army of the Potomac. Of course I have done this upon what appear to me to be sufficient reasons, and yet I think it best for you to know that there are some things in regard to which I am not quite satisfied with you. I believe you to be a brave and skilful soldier, which of course I like. I also believe you do not mix politics with your profession, in which you are right. You have confidence in yourself, which is a valuable if not an indispensable quality. You are ambitious, which, within reasonable bounds, does good rather than harm; but I think that during General Burnside’s command of the army you have taken counsel of your ambition and thwarted him as much as you could, in which you did a great wrong to the country and to a most meritorious and honorable brother officer. I have Addresses and Letters I9I heard, in such a way as to believe it, of your recently saying that both the army and the government needed a dictator. Of course it was not for this, but in spite of it, that I have given you the command. Only those generals who gain successes can set up dictators. What I now ask of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship. The government will support you to the utmost of its ability, which is neither more nor less than it has done and will do for all commanders. I much fear that the spirit which you have aided to infuse into the army, of criticizing their commander and withholding confidence from him, will now turn upon you. I shall assist you as far as I can to put it down. Neither you nor Napoleon, if he were alive again, could get any good out of an army while such a spirit pre- vails in it; and now beware of rashness, but with energy and sleepless vigilance go forward and give us victories. Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN Letter to Governor Horatio Seymour Horatio Seymour had been elected governor of New York in the autumn of 1862. He belonged to that wing of the Democratic party which supported the war for the Union, but did not believe in emancipation. To win him over to a vigorous support of the war, Lincoln offered to help him get the presidential nomination of 1864. Seymour, however, was strongly partisan, remained hostile to Lincoln, and ob- structed the draft of 1863. In 1868 he was the candidate of the Democrats against Grant. The following letter from — Lincoln he ignored for three weeks. He later declined to go to Washington to talk with Lincoln about the quotas in the draft which he had found fault with. 192 Abraham Lincoln [Private and Confidential] Executive Mansion, Washington, March 238, 1863 His Excellency Governor Seymour. Dear Str: You and I are substantially strangers, and I write this chiefly that we may become better acquainted. I, for the time being, am at the head of a nation which is in great peril, and you are at the head of the greatest state of that nation. As to maintaining the nation’s life and integrity, I assume and believe there cannot be a difference of purpose between you and me. If we should differ as to the means, it is important that such difference should be as small as possible; that it should not be enhanced by un- just suspicions on one side or the other. In the performance of my duty the codperation of your state, as that of others, is needed — in fact, is indispensable. This alone is a sufficient reason why I should wish to be at a good understanding with you. . Please write me at least as long a letter as this, of course saying in it just what you think fit. Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN Telegrams to General Joseph Hooker After Chancellorsville, Lee decided to carry the war into the North. These telegrams were written during the ma- neuvers that preceded Gettysburg. June 10, 1863 Masor GENERAL Hooker: Your long dispatch of to-day is just received. If left to me I would not go south of the Rappahannock upon Lee’s moving north of Addresses and Letters 193 it. If you had Richmond invested to-day you would not be able to take it in twenty days; meanwhile your communications, and with them your army, would be ruined. I think Lee’s army, and not Richmond, is your true objective point. If he comes toward the upper Potomac, follow on his flank and on his inside track, shortening your lines while he lengthens his. Fight him, too, when opportunity offers. If he stays where he is, fret him and fret him. A. LINCOLN June 14, 1863 Masor GENERAL Hooker: So far as we can make out here, the enemy have Milroy surrounded at Win- chester, and Tyler at Martinsburg. If they could hold out a few days, could you help them? If the head of Lee’s army is at Martinsburg and the tail of it on the plank road between Fredericksburg and Chancellors- ville, the animal must be very slim somewhere. Could you not break him? A. LINCOLN Letter to General U. S. Grant On the fourth of July, 1863, Lee began to remove his shat- tered army from Gettysburg. At the same time, the South- ern army at Vicksburg surrendered to Grant. In the Gettys- burg battle Lincoln had been the real commander, for he had kept in close touch with the Army of the Potomac through all of its movements, even changing generals afew days before the battle. In the Vicksburg campaign his chief work was to protect Grant against those who clamored for his removal, and to let him work out his own plans. This tribute to Grant is no less a tribute to the large-mindedness of Lincoln. 194 Abraham Lincoln Executive Mansion, Washington, July 13, 1863 Major General Grant. My DEAR GENERAL: I do not remember that you and I ever met personally. I write this now as a grate- ful acknowledgment for the almost inestimable service you have done the country. I wish to say a word further. When you first reached the vicinity of Vicks- burg, I thought you should do what you finally did — march the troops across the neck, run the batteries with the transports, and thus go below; and I never had any faith, except a general hope that you knew better than I, that the Yazoo Pass expedition and the like could succeed. When you got below and took Port Gibson, Grand Gulf, and vicinity, I thought you should go down the river and: join General Banks, and when you turned northward, east of the Big Black, I feared it was a mistake. I now wish to make the personal acknowledgment that you were right and I was wrong. Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN Letter to James C. Conkling ee This is Lincoln’s famous ‘‘stump speech” letter. He had been invited to speak in his home town to a mass meeting; instead, he sent this letter and asked that Conkling read it very slowly. The historian Rhodes says of it, ‘‘It is safe to say that had the result of the elections been really in doubt after Gettysburg and Vicksburg, the tide would have been turned by the timely and unanswerable logic of this letter.’’ In the elections following that autumn Lincoln’s party was sustained by good margins in almost every state then in the Union. Addresses and Letters 195 Executive Mansion, Washington, August 26, 1863 Hon. James C. Conkling. My pEAR Sir: Your letter inviting me to attend a mass meeting of unconditional Union men, to be held at the capital of Illinois on the 3d day of September, has been received. It would be very agreeable to me to thus meet my old friends at my own home, but I cannot just now be absent from here so long as a visit there would require. The meeting is to be of all those who maintain uncon- ditional devotion to the Union; and J am sure my old political friends will thank me for tendering, as I do, the nation’s gratitude to those and other noble men whom no partisan malice or partisan hope can make false to the nation’s life. There are those who are dissatisfied with me. To such I would say: You desire peace, and you blame me that we do not have it. But how can we attain it? There are but three conceivable ways: First, to sup- press the rebellion by force of arms. This I am trying to do. Are you for it? If you are, so far we are agreed. If you are not for it, a second way is to give up the Union. I am against this. Are you for it? If you are, you should say so plainly. If you are not for force, nor yet for dissolution, there only remains some imaginable compromise. I do not believe any compromise embracing the maintenance of the Union is now possible. All I learn leads to a directly opposite belief. The strength of the rebellion is its military, its army. That army dominates all the country and all the people within its range. Any offer of terms made by any man or men within that range, in opposition to 196 Abraham Lincoln that army, is simply nothing for the present, because such man or men have no power whatever to enforce their side of a compromise if one were made with them. To illustrate: Suppose refugees from the South and peace men of the North get together in convention, and frame and proclaim a compromise embracing a restora- tion of the Union. In what way can that compromise be used to keep Lee’s army out of Pennsylvania? Meade’s army can keep Lee’s army out of Pennsylvania, and, I think, can ultimately drive it out of existence. But no paper compromise to which the controllers of Lee’s army are not agreed can at all affect that army. In an effort at such compromise we should waste time which the enemy would improve to our disadvantage ; and that would be all. A compromise, to be effective, must be made either with those who control the rebel army, or with the people first liberated from the domi- nation of that army by the success of our own army. Now, allow me to assure you that no word or intimation from that rebel army, or from any of the men con- trolling it, in relation to any peace compromise, has ever come to my knowledge or belief. All charges and insinuations to the contrary are deceptive and ground- less. And I promise you that if any such proposition shall hereafter come, it shall not be rejected and kept a secret from you. I freely acknowledge myself the servant of the people according to the bond of serv- ice — the United States Constitution — and that, as such, I am responsible to them. But to be plain. You are dissatisfied with me about the negro. Quite likely there is a difference of opinion between you and myself upon that subject, I certainly —=—_. Addresses and Letters 197 wish that all men could be free, while I suppose you do not. Yet, I have neither adopted nor proposed any measure which is not consistent with even your view, provided you are for the Union. I suggested compen- sated emancipation, to which you replied you wished not to be taxed to buy negroes. But I had not asked you to be taxed to buy negroes, except in such way as to save you from greater taxation to save the Union exclu- sively by other means. You dislike the Emancipation Proclamation, and per- haps would have it retracted. You say it is unconsti- tutional. I think differently. I think the Constitu- tion invests its commander-in-chief with the law of war in time of war. The most that can be said —if so much — is that slaves are property. Is there — has there ever been — any question that, by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed? And is it not needed whenever taking it helps us, or hurts the enemy? Armies, the world over, destroy enemies’ property when they cannot use it; and even destroy their own to keep it from the enemy. Civilized belligerents do all in their power to help themselves or hurt the enemy, except a few things re- garded as barbarous or cruel. Among the exceptions are the massacre of vanquished foes and noncombatants, male and female. But the Proclamation, as law, either is valid or is not valid. If it is not valid, it needs no retraction. If it is valid, it cannot be retracted any more than the dead can be brought to life. Some of you profess to think its retraction would operate favorably for the Union. Why better after the retraction than before the issue? 198 Abraham Lincoln There was more than a year and a half of trial to sup- press the rebellion before the proclamation issued; the last one hundred days of which passed under an explicit notice that it was coming, unless averted by those in revolt returning to their allegiance. The war has cer- tainly progressed as favorably for us since the issue of the proclamation as before. I know, as fully as one can know the opinions of others, that some of the commanders of our armies in the field, who have given us our most important successes, believe the emancipation policy and the use of the colored troops constitute the heaviest blow yet dealt to the rebellion, and that at least one of these important suc- cesses could not have been achieved when it was, but for the aid of black soldiers. Among the commanders holding these views are some who have never had any affinity with what is called abolitionism, or with Re- publican party politics, but who hold them purely as military opinions. I submit these opinions as being entitled to some weight against the objections often urged that emancipation and arming the blacks are unwise as military measures, and were not adopted as such in good faith. You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but no matter. Fight you, then, exclusively, to save the Union. I issued the Proclamation on purpose to aid you in saving the Union. Whenever you shall have conquered all resistance to the Union, if I shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time then for you to declare you will not fight to free negroes. I thought that in your struggle for the Union, to Addresses and Letters 199 whatever extent the negroes should cease helping the enemy, to that extent it weakened the enemy in his resistance to you. Do you think differently? I thought that whatever negroes can be got to do as soldiers, leaves just so much less for white soldiers to do in saving the Union. Does it appear otherwise to you? But negroes, like other people, act upon motives. Why should they do anything for us if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us they must be prompted by the strongest motive, even the promise of freedom. And the promise, being made, must be kept. The signs look better. The Father of Waters again goes unvexed to the sea. Thanks to the great North- west for it. Nor yet wholly to them. Three hundred miles up they met New England, Empire, Keystone, and Jersey, hewing their way right and left. The sunny South, too, in more colors than one, also lent a hand. On the spot, their part of the history was jotted down in black and white. The job was a great national one, and let none be banned who bore an honorable part in it. And while those who have cleared the great river may well be proud, even that is not all. It is hard to say that anything has been more bravely and well done than at Antietam, Murfreesboro, Gettysburg, and on many fields of lesser note. Nor must Uncle Sam’s webfeet be forgotten. At all the watery margins they have been present. Not only on the deep sea, the broad bay, and the rapid river, but also up the narrow, muddy bayou, and wherever the ground was a little damp, they have been and made their tracks. Thanks to all: for the great republic — for the principle it lives by and keeps alive — for man’s vast future — thanks to all. 200 Abraham Lincoln Peace does not appear so distant as it did. I hope it will come soon, and come to stay ; and so come as to be worth the keeping in all future time. It will then have been proved that among free men there can be no suc- cessful appeal from the ballot to the bullet, and that they who take such appeal are sure to lose their case and pay the cost. And then there will be some black men who can remember that with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet, they have helped mankind on to this great consumma- tion, while I fear there will be some white ones unable to forget that with malignant heart and deceitful speech they strove to hinder it. Still, let us not be oversanguine of a speedy final triumph. Let us be quite sober. Let us diligently apply the means, never doubting that a just God, in His own good time, will give us the rightful result. Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN Letters to James H. Hackett Hackett published the first of these letters and Lincoln was attacked in some newspapers for what was considered his crude taste. His genuine appreciation of Shakespeare was, unquestionably, much greater than that of those who belittled him. The tragedy of Macbeth seemed to impress him, for it is related that a few days before his death he read aloud Macbeth’s speech to Lady Macbeth including the famous lines, Dunean is in his grave; After life’s fitful fever he sleeps well. The second letter reveals much of the sensitive side of Lincoln. Addresses and Letters 201 Executive Mansion, Washington, August 17, 1863 My pear Sir: Months ago I should have acknowl- edged the receipt of your book and accompanying kind note; and I now have to beg your pardon for not having done so. For one of my age I have seen very little of the drama. The first presentation of Falstaff I ever saw was yours here, last winter or spring. Perhaps the best compli- ment I can pay is to say, as I truly can, I am very anxious to see it again. Some of Shakespeare’s plays I have never read; while others I have gone over perhaps as frequently as any unprofessional reader. Among the latter are “Lear,” ‘ Richard III,” “Henry VIII,” “Hamlet,” and especially ‘‘Macbeth.” I think nothing equals ‘‘ Macbeth.” It is wonderful. Unlike you gentlemen of the profession, I think the soliloquy in ‘‘Hamlet’”’ commencing “Oh, my offense is rank,” surpasses that commencing “To be or not to be.”’ But pardon this small attempt at criticism. I should like to hear you pronounce the opening speech of Richard III. Will you not soon visit Washington again? If you do, please call and let me make your personal acquaintance. Yours truly, A. LINCOLN Executive Mansion, Washington, November 2, 1863 James H. Hackett. My pgAR Sir: Yours of October 22 is received, as also was in due course that of October 3. I look for- ward with pleasure to the fulfillment of the promise made in the former to visit Washington the following winter and to “call.” 202 Abraham Lincoln Give yourself no uneasiness on the subject mentioned in that of the 22d. My note to you I certainly did not expect to see in print; yet I have not been much shocked by the news- paper comments uponit. Those comments constitute a _ fair specimen of what has occurred to me through life. I have endured a great deal of ridicule without much malice; and have received a great deal of kindness, not quite free from ridicule. I am used to it. Yours truly, A. LINCOLN The Gettysburg Address No greater mistake could be made than to consider this classic work as an isolated thing. On the contrary, the beauty and dignity of it were wrought out and fought out through almost three years of a war that tested and molded the character that we revere in Lincoln. Never a man of many words, on this occasion he is almost reticent. The oceasion was the dedication of the Gettysburg battlefield as a national cemetery. The orator of the day was Edward Everett, whose long and polished oration is now forgotten. The ‘‘few remarks” of Lincoln, which he read from a paper, fell upon the vast crowd like a benediction; they have been cherished ever since as a lofty expression of fine thought. [November 19, 1863] Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war; testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so STATUE oF LINCOLN BY DANIEL CHESTER FRENCH, LINCOLN, NEBRASKA. LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF | URBANA 2: . Addresses and Letters 203 dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow —this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated - here 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 remaining 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 have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. Letter to Salmon P. Chase Secretary Chase never admitted, as Secretary Seward did, that, ‘‘ Lincoln is the best of us.’’ He continued to hope and plan for the Republican nomination. Early in 1864 the activities of his supporters became so much a matter of public discussion that Chase wrote Lincoln repudiating some phases of it. This is Lincoln’s reply. When Chase’s own state, Ohio, declared for Lincoln’s renomination, Chase withdrew. Senator Pomeroy had started the ‘‘boom”’ with a circular. A few months later, when Chase resigned, Lincoln refusing 204 Abraham Lincoln any longer to coax him, let him go. Upon the death of Chief Justice Taney, Lincoln named Chase for the vacancy and it was Chase who swore him in for his second term. Executive Mansion, Washington, February 29, 1864 Hon. Secretary of the Treasury. My pear Sir: I would have taken time to answer yours of the 2d sooner, only that I did not suppose any evil could result from the delay, especially as, by a note, I promptly acknowledged the receipt of yours, and promised a fuller answer. Now, on consideration, I find there is really very little to say. My knowledge of Mr. Pomeroy’s letter having been made public came - to me only the day you wrote, but I had, in spite of myself, known of its existence several days before. I have not yet read it, and I think I shall not. I was not shocked or surprised by the appearance of the letter, because I had had knowledge of Mr. Pomeroy’s com- mittee, and of secret issues which I supposed came from it, and of secret agents who I supposed were sent out by it, for several weeks. I have known just as little of these things as my friends have allowed me to know. They bring the documents to me, but I do not read them ; they tell me what they think fit to tell me, but I do not inquire for more. I fully concur with you that neither of us can be justly held responsible for what our respective friends may do without our instigation or countenance; and I assure you, as you have assured me, that no assault has been made upon you by my instiga- tion or with my countenance. Whether you shall re- main at the head of the Treasury Department is a ques- tion which I will not allow myself to consider from any Addresses and Letters 205 standpoint other than my judgment of the public serv- ice, and, in that view, I do not perceive occasion for a change. Yours truly, A. LINCOLN Letter to A. G. Hodges Colonel Albert Gallatin Hodges had, with Governor Bram- lette and Senator Dixon, protested against the recruiting of negro troops in their state, Kentucky. This convincing de- fense of emancipation as a war measure should be read in connection with the letter to Horace Greeley (p. 168). The thought in the last paragraph seemed to take hold of Lincoln’s mind, for he developed it a year later in the Second Inaugural. Executive Mansion, Washington, April 4, 1864 A. G. Hodges, Esq., Frankfort, Kentucky. My DEAR Srr: You ask me to put in writing the substance of what I verbally said the cther day in your presence, to Governor Bramlette and Senator Dixon. It was about as follows: “Tam naturally antislavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I cannot remember when I did not so think and feel, and yet I had never understood that the presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling. It was in the oath I took that I would, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. I could not take the office without taking the oath. Nor was it my view that I might take an oath to get power, and break the oath in using the power. I understood, too, that in ordinary civil ad- ministration this oath even forbade me to practically 206 Abraham Lincoln indulge my primary abstract judgment on the moral question of slavery. I had publicly declared this many times, and in many ways. And I aver that, to this day, I have done no official act in mere deference to my abstract judgment and feeling on slavery. “‘T did understand, however, that my oath to pre- serve the Constitution to the best of my ability imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government, that nation, of which that Constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation and yet preserve the Constitution? “By general law, life and limb must be protected, yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life, but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assume this ground, and now avow it. I could not feel that, to the best of my ability, I had even tried to preserve the Constitution if, to save slavery or any minor matter, I should per- mit the wreck of government, country, and Constitu- tion all together. “When, early in the war, General Frémont attempted military emancipation, I forbade it, because I did not then think it an indispensable necessity. “When, a little later, General Cameron, then Secre- tary of War, suggested the arming of the blacks, I ob- jected, because I did not yet think it an indispensable necessity. | “When, still later again, General Hunter attempted military emancipation, I again forbade it, because : Addresses and Letters 207 I did not yet think the indispensable necessity had come. “When in March, and May, and July, 1862, I made earnest and successive appeals to the border States to favor compensated emancipation, I believed the in- dispensable necessity for military emancipation and arming the blacks would come, unless averted by that measure. “They declined the proposition, and I was, in my best judgment, driven to the alternative of either surrender- ing the Union, and with it the Constitution, or of laying strong hand upon the colored element. I chose the latter. In choosing it I hoped for greater gain than loss, but of this I was not entirely confident. “More than a year of trial now shows no loss by it in our foreign relations, none in our home popular sentiment, none in our white military force, no loss by it anyhow or anywhere. On the contrary, it shows a gain of quite a hundred and thirty thousand soldiers, seamen, and laborers. These are palpable facts, about which, as facts, there can be no caviling. We have the men, and we could not have had them without the measure. “And now let any Union man, who complains of the measure, test himself by writing down in one line that he is for subduing the rebellion by force of arms, and in the next that he is for taking these hundred and thirty thousand men from the Union side, and placing them where they would be but for the meas- ure which he condemns. If he cannot face his case so stated, it is only because he cannot face the truth.” I add a word which was not in the verbal conversa- 208 Abraham Lincoln tion. In telling this tale I attempt no compliment to my own sagacity ; I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me. Now, at the end of three years’ struggle, the nation’s condition is not what either party or any man devised or expected. God alone can claim it. Whither it is tending seems plain. If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we of the North, as well as you of the South, shall pay fairly for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice and goodness of God. Yours truly, A. LINCOLN Two Telegrams to the Family Sept. 21, 1863 Mrs. A. Lincoln Fifth Avenue Hotel, New York. The air is so clear and cool and apparently healthy that I would be glad for you to come. Nothing very particular but I would be glad to see you and Tad. A. LINCOLN April 28, 1864 Mrs. A. Lincoln, New York. The draft will go to you. Tell Tad the goats and father are very well, especially the goats. A. LINCOLN Letter to General U. S. Grant After the victory at Vicksburg, Grant was summoned to take charge of the broken army of Rosecrans at Chattanooga. Addresses and Letters 209 Here he, with Sherman and Thomas, on November 238, 24, 25, won a decisive victory. Next February, Congress revived the rank of Lieutenant-General, and Grant was given this supreme post of commanding all of the armies of the United States. That Lincoln had complete confidence in him, this letter will show. Executive Mansion, Washington, April 30, 1864 LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT: Not expecting to see you again before the spring campaign opens, I wish to express in this way my entire satisfaction with what you have done up to this time, so far as I understand it. The particulars of your plans I neither know nor seek to know. You are vigilant and self-reliant; and, pleased with this, I wish not to obtrude any constraints or re- straints upon you. While I am very anxious that any great disaster or capture of our men in great numbers shall be avoided, I know these points are less likely to escape your attention than they would be mine. If there is anything wanting which is within my power to give, do not fail to let me know it. And now, with a brave army and a just cause, may God sustain you. Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN Telegram to General U. S. Grant The appalling loss of life in Grant’s campaign of 1864— at the Wilderness, Spottsylvania, Cold Harbor, and Petersburg — threw the North once more into despair, and shook the confidence in Grant. Lincoln, despite all, never lost faith in him. August 17, 1864 LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, City Point, Va.: I have seen your dispatch expressing your unwillingness 210 Abraham Lincoln to break your hold where you are. Neither am I willing. Hold on with a bulldog grip, and chew and choke as much as possible. A. LINCOLN Letter to Mrs. Bixby All the world knows this tender letter of the President to an afflicted mother. Executive Mansion, Washington, November 21, 1864 Mrs. Bixby, Boston, Mass. Dear Mapam: I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant-General of Massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle. I feel how weak and fruitless must be any words of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from ten- dering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the republic they died to save. I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom. Yours very sincerely and respectfully, ABRAHAM LINCOLN Letter to General Grant Robert Todd Lincoln was the oldest of Lincoln’s children. Unlike ‘‘Tad,’’ he did not see a great deal of his father during the war, for he was a student at Harvard. He later served Addresses and Letters 211 as Secretary of War under President Garfield, and Ambassa- dor to England under Harrison. He recently (1923) greeted Lloyd George on the latter’s visit to the United States. Executive Mansion, Washington, January 19, 1865 LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT: Please read and answer this letter as though I was not President, but only a friend. My son, now in his twenty-second year, having graduated at Harvard, wishes to see something of the war before it ends. I do not wish to put him in the ranks, nor yet to give him a commission, to which those who have already served long are better entitled, and better qualified to hold. Could he, without embar- rassment to you or detriment to the service, go into your military family with some nominal rank, I, and not the public, furnishing his necessary means? If no, say so without the least hesitation, because I am as anxious and as deeply interested that you shall not be encum- bered as you can be yourself. Yours truly, A. LINCOLN Second Inaugural Address Early in August, 1864, Lincoln and other leaders despaired of his reélection. But the victories of Farragut at Mobile, Sherman at Atlanta, and Sheridan in the Shenandoah silenced the ‘‘war is a failure’’ talk and Lincoln was elected with an electoral vote of 212 to McClellan’s 21. The more one studies this Second Inaugural, the keener is the regret that the man who bore malice toward none was not spared to bind up the nation’s wounds. In commenting upon the speech Lincoln said, ‘‘I expect it to wear as well as, perhaps better than, anything I have written.’’ Competent opinion today confirms this judgment. 212 Abraham Lincoln [March 4, 1865] FELLOW COUNTRYMEN: At this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less oc- casion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued, seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the ex- piration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the at- tention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself; and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured. On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it —all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union with- out war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came. One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves con- stituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that Addresses and Letters 218 this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial en- largement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His ald against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces; but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered — that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. ‘‘ Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” 1 If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God 1 See Matthew xviii, 7. 214 Abraham Lincoln always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope —fer- vently do we pray — that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, ‘‘ The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.” With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan — to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations. The Last Public Address The news of Lee’s surrender reached Washington on April 10, and a crowd, as usual, flocked to the White House. Lin- coln promised to have something to say on the following evening, and at that time read this address. His mind had turned from war to reconstruction. How little he thought of resentment toward the South his words will show. Four days later he was dead. [April 11, 1865] , We meet this evening not in sorrow, but in gladness of heart. The evacuation of Petersburg and Richmond, and the surrender of the principal insurgent army, give hope of a righteous and speedy peace, whose joyous expression cannot be restrained. In the midst of this, a) Photo by Peet Bros., Washington, D.C. STaTuE OF LINCOLN By GuTzoN BorGLuum, NEwaRK, NEw JERSEY, “UBRARY UNIVERSITY Of LINO 7 eS, ay | URBANA Addresses and Letters 215 however, He from whom all blessings flow must not be forgotten. A call for a national thanksgiving is being prepared, and will be duly promulgated. Nor must those whose harder part give us the cause of rejoicing be overlooked. Their honors must not be parceled out with others. I myself was near the front, and had the high pleasure of transmitting much of the good news to you; but no part of the honor for plan or execution is mine. To General Grant, his skillful officers and brave men, all belongs. The gallant navy stood ready, but was not in reach to take active part. By these recent successes the reinauguration of the national authority — reconstruction — which has had a large share of thought from the first, is pressed much more closely upon our attention. It is fraught with great difficulty. Unlike a case of war between inde- pendent nations, there is no authorized organ for us to treat with — no one man has authority to give up the rebellion for any other man. We simply must begin with and mold from disorganized and discordant ele- ments. Nor is it a small additional embarrassment that we, the loyal people, differ among ourselves as to the mode, manner, and measure of reconstruction. As a general rule, I abstain from reading the reports of attacks upon myself, wishing not to be provoked by that to which I cannot properly offer an answer. In spite of this precaution, however, it comes to my knowledge that I am much censured for some supposed agency in setting up and seeking to sustain the new state government of Louisiana. In this I have done just so much as, and no more than, the public knows. In the Annual Message of December, 1863, and in the 216 Abraham Lincoln accompanying proclamation, I presented a plan of reconstruction, as the phrase goes, which I promised, if adopted by any state, should be acceptable to and sustained by the executive government of the nation. I distinctly stated that this was not the only plan which might possibly be acceptable, and I also distinctly protested that the executive claimed no right to say when or whether members should be admitted to seats in Congress for such states. This plan was in advance submitted to the then cabinet, and distinctly approved by every member of it. One of them suggested that I should then and in that connection apply the Emanci- pation Proclamation to the theretofore excepted parts of Virginia and Louisiana; that I should drop the suggestion about apprenticeship for freed people, and that I should omit the protest against my own power in regard to the admission of members to Congress. But even he approved every part and parcel of the plan which has since been employed or touched by the action of Louisiana. . The new constitution of Louisiana, declaring emanci- pation for the whole state, practically applies the proclamation to the part previously excepted. It does not adopt apprenticeship for freed people, and it is silent, as it could not well be otherwise, about the ad- mission of members to Congress. So that, as it applied to Louisiana, every member of the cabinet fully ap- proved the plan. The message went to Congress, and I received many commendations of the plan, written and verbal, and not a single objection to it from any professed emancipationist came to my knowledge until after the news reached Washington that the people of Addresses and Letters 217 Louisiana had begun to move in accordance with it. From about July, 1862, I had corresponded with dif- ferent persons supposed to be interested [in] seeking a reconstruction of a state government for Louisiana. When the message of 1863, with the plan before men- tioned, reached New Orleans, General Banks wrote me that he was confident that the people, with his mili- tary codperation, would reconstruct substantially on that plan. I wrote to him and some of them to try it. They tried it, and the result is known. Such has been my only agency in getting up the Louisiana government. As to sustaining it, my promise is out, as before stated. But as bad promises are better broken than kept, I shall treat this as a bad promise, and break it when- ever I shall be convinced that keeping it is adverse to the public interest; but I have not yet been so con- vinced. I have been shown a letter on this subject, supposed to be an able one, in which the writer expresses regret that my mind has not seemed to be definitely fixed on the question whether the seceded states, so called, are in the Union or out of it. It would perhaps add astonishment to his regret were he to learn that since I have found professed Union men endeavoring to make that question, I have purposely forborne any public expression upon it. As appears to me, that ques- tion has not been, nor yet is, a practically material one, and that any discussion of it, while it thus remains practically immaterial, could have no effect other than the mischievous one of dividing our friends. As yet, whatever it may hereafter become, that question is bad as the basis of a controversy, and good for nothing at all—a merely pernicious abstraction. We all agree 218 Abraham Lincoln that the seceded states, so called, are out of their proper practical relation with the Union, and that the sole object of the government, civil and military, in regard to those states is to again get them into that proper practical relation. I believe that it is not only possible, but in fact easier, to do this without deciding or even considering whether these states have ever been out of the Union, than with it. Finding themselves safely at home, it would be utterly immaterial whether they had ever been abroad. Let us all join in doing the acts necessary to restoring the proper practical relations between these states and the Union, and each forever after innocently indulge his own opinion whether in doing the acts he brought the states from without into the Union, or only gave them proper assistance, they never having been out of it. The amount of con- stituency, so to speak, on which the new Louisiana government rests, would be more satisfactory to all if it contained 50,000, or 30,000, or even 20,000, instead of only about 12,000, as it does. It is also unsatis- factory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers. Still, the question is not whether the Louisiana government, as it stands, is quite all that is desirable. The question is, Will it be wiser to take it as it is and help to improve it, or to reject and disperse it? Can Louisiana be brought into proper practical relation with the Union sooner by sustaining or by discarding her new state government? 4 1 A small vindictive Senate group had blocked Lincoln’s plans for Louisiana. Addresses and Letters 215 Some 12,000 voters in the heretofore slave state of Louisiana have sworn allegiance to the Union, assumed to be the rightful political power of the state, held elections, organized a state government, adopted a free-state constitution, giving the benefit of public schools equally to black and white, and empowering the legislature to confer the elective franchise upon the colored man. Their legislature has already voted to ratify the constitutional amendment recently passed by Congress, abolishing slavery throughout the nation. These 12,000 persons are thus fully committed to the Union and to perpetual freedom in the state — com- mitted to the very things, and nearly all the things, the nation wants — and they ask the nation’s recognition and its assistance to make good their committal. Now, if we reject and spurn them, we do our utmost to disorganize and disperse them. We, in effect, say to the white man: You are worthless, or worse; we will neither help you nor be helped by you. To the blacks we say: This cup of liberty which these, your old masters, hold to your lips we will dash from you, and leave you to the chances of gathering the spilled and scattered contents in some vague and undefined when, where, and how. If this course, discouraging and paralyzing both white and black, has any tendency to bring Louisiana into proper practical relations with the Union, I have so far been unable to perceive it. If, on the contrary, we recognize and sustain the new govern- ment of Louisiana, the converse of all this is made true. We encourage the hearts and nerve the arms of the 12,000 to adhere to their work, and argue for it, and proselyte for it, and fight for it, and feed it, and grow it, 220 Abraham Lincoln and ripen it to a complete success. The colored man, too, in seeing all united for him, is inspired with vigi- lance, and energy, and daring, to the same end. Grant that he desires the elective franchise, will he not attain it sooner by saving the already advanced steps toward it than by running backward over them? Concede that the new government of Louisiana is only to what it should be as the egg is to the fowl, we shall sooner have the fowl by hatching the egg than by smashing it. Again, if we reject Louisiana we also reject one vote in favor of the proposed amendment to the national Con- stitution. 'To meet this proposition it has been argued that no more than three fourths of those states which have not attempted secession are necessary to validly ratify the amendment. I do not commit myself against this further than to say that such a ratification would be questionable, and sure to be persistently questioned, while a ratification by three fourths of all the states would be unquestioned and unquestionable. I repeat the question: Can Louisiana be brought into proper practical relation with the Union sooner by sustaining or by discarding her new state government? What has been said of Louisiana will apply generally to other states. And yet so great peculiarities pertain to each state, and such important and sudden changes occur in the same state, and withal so new and un- precedented is the whole case that no exclusive and in- flexible plan can safely be prescribed as to details and collaterals. Such exclusive and inflexible plan would surely become a new entanglement. Important prin- ciples may and must be inflexible. In the present situa- Addresses and Letters 221 tion, as the phrase goes, it may be my duty to make some new announcement to the people of the South. I am considering, and shall not fail to act when satisfied that action will be proper. Abraham Lincoln 222 (puvjsuq ur) Avayprer surg EZET pereyo “9p 90001) JO asdUepuedepuUy ZZRT solden pur ‘yesn4 “10g ‘uredg ul suonnjoasy Qzgt souepued “Opul ules volIoUry YINOG pues [eiua) UI saruofoo esonsnjiog pue ystuedg GZSI-LZIST 20UBTTTY ATOH,, BuUdIA JO ssaIsUu0D OO]19}BM GIST BIzd1aT 38 pozvojop uosfoden EIST MOO “SOY WOlf JVaIJOI S UOsTOdeN ZIT Iamod sty JO 4ysoy 48 uosodeN OTST puelsuq Aq poeyqryord opeiy oavlg LOST AUYOLSIFL Nvadouny 9ULIzOOd sOIUOT SZ8T OSIULOIMULOL) LINOSSIP OZ8T SoIp IOYJOW SIST SUBIPUT 0} SOAOU ATIMIBA OTST puelsug YIM reAA ZIST Ayonzuey Ul Wog GOST UWOI}N{ISUOD 94} JO UOISTA -o1d Aq peysi[oge apes} VABTG SORT Aueq[Y 0} YIOX MON ULOIJ SUIBO4S JUOW IID S,U0IINA JOST AUOLSIE NVOIUAWY Gal'T S.NIOONI'T (S978 poyUA oy} UT SuIppoy-eavys YALA yue}sIsUOoUT sseiso1d — odoing Url WIOJaI pue AovIo0uIep Aq OpCUL BDUBAP oY} VOIJOU prNoys JuepNys oy) AT4VL TVOISOTONOUHO 233 Chronological Table Autynur Aodsvg LST I@M UBOUILID 9-FGST eouRLy Ul oldu puoveg Zest puvlsuyq Url systziVyy) jo uonneg ‘A[ey] ‘BIaysny ‘Auvulloy, Ul suornyjoaszy ‘yuepiseid peqyoela uosfodeN sInoyT {o90UBIY UI UOTYN[OAVY SPST pur] -Suq Ul MVT UIOD jo [vodey YFP8T puvjer] Ul cure, CF8T siouMoO SutXked ‘seruojoo ut AIOARIS SoYysToge puvlsuq EEst puelsugq Ur [lq U1Ofjoy GEST poysnio puejog ul uorzOoLINsUT. TEST QOURL] Ul UOTYNJOASY OST yy uorjediuvwmy opoyye 681 AUOLSIFT Nvadoung UOISIOOp 33099 pald LG8T sesuvy Apoo[g 9GS8T Id BysviqoN-sesuvy FST OST Jo estwmoidur0”ry OS8T I@A\ UBOTXOT, OFST TH ‘Uoury ur perepintz AofeaoT yelTd sest poystiqeyse (1adedsmou Auued ysig) ung yIOK MON EST ere -O1WD YINOg Ul UOHVOBTINN Est eyeqoqd suABH-I0O}sqoM OEST AYOLSIE NVOINANY sopeqop sejsnoqd ‘yooods ,, PeplArp-esnoy],, SS8T yovods vil0eg Fst ssoisu0y Ul 8—-LF8T SSOISUOD 0} PoE YFPST PPOL ATVI Sore SPST 9INZVISISIT 0F poPOTV0Y OFT dIN}VISISIT 0F POPI[QEY SEST 1eq 0} poyztups foinye[sIsoy 03 poez,oo[QeY YEST 91N}BISISa] 09 POZO FEST . 91IN}VISTSO] IOJ poPVojod TEST SIOUT]]] 0} SOAOJ 6Z8T Gal] § NIOONI'T Abraham Lincoln 224 VlIJSNY Syoe}ze YoIVusig w10jol AreyuUeUI -eljied sesodoid ouojspely 998T yous upooury ‘FT ‘dy siIopuselins oeT ‘6 ‘“IdyY GOST poJoo|ger UpooUTT ‘AON yrveuueqd eyueyyy 38 uBUTIeYyg ‘4ydag uodn IvM soYxVUl YOIVUISIg FORT ey9eq ssou “OPM S.juvipy ‘ounr-AvW POST singsAzyor) ‘e-T Arne UOT} BUI -epooid uonediuewmy ‘T ‘uer €9gT BOS 0} sedvose DUDGnIT uor}edrIouvUle JO UOTYeVUL BISsnig Ul JoMod ul YoIwusig ZOST -epooid Areurutjeig ‘ZZ ydag pur] uleyoryuy ‘YT “3de9 ZO8T -Suq Ul SUISeq oUTUIey] 103400 TVZe T[PPlS puve uose]y uny [nq ‘TZ Ane pouoy Ajeyy jo wopsuryy uodn BISSNy UI poyediouvuls sjleg T98T pelg JojuING Wy ‘ZI “AdV [9ST poyeinsneul ‘F Poe, [OST (AON) JuUeptseid poze] (Av) ATBY]I JO uoreoy Aouoeptseid IO} WOTZBUTULO NT Tun 1oj ustedues s,tprequey 9st (-q2,J) sserppy woruy Jadoo) O9ST sesuvy pus OIGG uISsyBvods AIIO ST ujooulry {0}B8Ueg so}e10 UOlpVIOGVT JO IVM UBITBI]T GEST Ss,todieyy ye preis umoIg uYyoOr GGRT pou OJ uesoYyO sv[sno0q GCST AUOLSIE Nygaounq AYOLSIFT NVOINAWY @dIT S,NIOONI'T panuijuo) —ATAVL TYOISOTONOYHD QUESTIONS FOR STUDY AND REPORT ANNOUNCEMENT OF CANDIDACY 1. In what ways does this announcement show “local color”? How can you tell to which party Lincoln belonged ? 2. What was Lincoln doing in 1832? 3. In national affairs what was the fate of the Bank in this year? 4. What important incident with regard to the tariff oc- curred in 1832? 5. What is meant by the internal improvement system? 6. Perhaps there is an abandoned canal somewhere in your neighborhood dating back to this time. Can you find one? ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF SANGAMON COUNTY 1. Read the letters to Greeley, McClellan, and Grant, expressing the willingness, as this announcement does, to give up opinions as soon as they are discovered to be erro- neous. 2. Is this willingness a sign of strength, or weakness? Why? POLITICAL VIEWS IN 1836 1. Can you see in this any sign that Lincoln had learned anything from his defeat in 1832? 2. I shall be governed by their will. What were the people of the West demanding at this time? 3. Did these demands win in the presidential election of this year (1836)? In 1840? 4. In what way is the language of this letter an improve- ment over the first announcement? 5. Suppose you are a candidate for some office in your school. Write a letter to the school paper, in which you ‘*show your hand.”’ 225 226 Questions for Study and Report PROTEST AGAINST SLAVERY 1. What was Lincoln’s attitude toward abolition? Find his discussion of the negro in the Peoria speech (p. 12); in his first debate with Douglas (p. 54); in his Columbus speech (p. 83); in the Cooper Union address (p. 109); in his First Inaugural (p. 142). 2. When and how did Congress get power ‘‘to interfere with slavery in the different states’’ ? LETTERS TO HERNDON AND JOHNSTON 1. Give your judgment of these as letters. Could they have been easily understood by the men for whom they were intended? Do they accomplish their purpose? Do they stick to the point? Do they keep a basis of friendliness? 2. What glimpses do these letters give you of Lincoln? What do you think of his method of treating Johnston? 3. Write a letter to a student in a lower class who is dis- couraged in his work. Give some practical advice for master- ing some one subject. THE PEORIA SPEECH 1. Show by quotation how this speech was adjusted to the crowd to whom it was spoken. 2. How does Lincoln clear the ground for his argument? 3. Give a good instance of his fairness to those who might differ with him. 4. State briefly his idea of self-government. 5. Give an example of his adroit argument — his skill in stealing his opponent’s ‘‘thunder.”’ 6. Find one excellent example of his broad-mindedness. 7. What is Lincoln’s idea of an American? Do you think it is a good idea? Why, or why not? 8. Why does he mention Clay and Webster? 9. Compare his remarks about the Southern people in this speech with his address to the South in the Cooper Union speech; in the First Inaugural; in the Second Inaugural. Questions for Study and Report 227 10. What is his plan for emancipation? What does he say of this in his first debate with Douglas? In the Cooper Union speech ? 11. Compare his remarks about the fugitive slave law with his attitude in the First Inaugural. How can you explain this position in a man who hated slavery ? 12. Make a list of opinions in this speech which are later used in letters or other speeches. 13. Prepare an outline for a speech to an unfriendly audi- ence. Use your opponent’s arguments as a basis for yours. Select a topic of interest to your school or community. De- liver the talk to your class. LETTER TO GEORGE ROBERTSON Why did Lincoln write a letter as long as this? Which parts are aimed at a Kentuckian? Which paragraph meets Robertson on his own level? Which tries to carry him beyond this? Select the parts that show that Lincoln has been closely omni ghee the history of slavery. 6. Which part would Robertson be apt to quote to a friend ? Bers wees THE SPRINGFIELD SPEECH Before reading this, turn to an American history and read what it says about the Dred Scott decision and the Lecomp- ton Constitution. 1. Tell exactly what Lincoln wished to do by means of this speech. 2. Does he convince you? Why, or why not? 3. Do you feel that he is much in earnest or is it the usual ‘‘campaign talk’’? What makes you think so? 4. Give, step by step, the progress of his argument. 5. Consider the metaphor that he uses. Does it help to make his meaning clearer? Is it especially adapted to his audience? Why, or why not? 6. Is he fair to Douglas? Prove what you say by quota- tion. 228 Questions for Study and Report 7. The Republican Party was but two years old at this time and therefore needed a rallying ery. Does Lincoln supply this? How? 8. Lincoln wrote out this speech with great care. Why? 9. Do you find any improvement in plan or language over the Peoria speech? Which do you prefer? Why? 10. Lincoln’s ‘‘house divided’’ idea was not a policy, but merely a prediction. What is the difference? Four months later Seward expressed his belief that a conflict was irre- pressible. Whose position was more dangerous? Why? Or, are the two ideas identical ? 11. Several prominent antislavery editors favored Doug- las in the contest because of his popular sovereignty plan, and his unquestioned ability. Supposing that you have just heard Lincoln, write to a prominent newspaper, giving Linecoln’s claim for support: 12. Write an editorial such as might have appeared in a Republican newspaper of the time commenting on the speech. 13. Write an editorial such as might have appeared in a Democratic newspaper of the time in the North on the same subject. 14. Do the same for an Abolitionist newspaper. 15. Do the same for a newspaper in South Carolina. 16. Imagine that you are a reporter attending this con- vention. Write a news story. Read it to the class and let them judge whether you have leaned toward either side of the controversy. THE FIRST LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE DouGLAS’sS SPEECH 1. Douglas uses several of the usual arguments to dis- credit a new movement. Where does he try to show that the Republicans were unpatriotic? Where does he accuse them of opposing the fathers of our country? How does he try to link them with the violent extremists of the day? Where does he try to make the Republican leaders seem dis- reputable? Questions for Study and Report 229 2. What is the main point Douglas is trying to make? Do you think he has made it? LINCOLN’S REPLY 1. Is Lincoln wise in keeping his good humor throughout his reply? Why? 2. In what respect is the general tone of his speech better than Douglas’s? 3. To which of Douglas’s charges does he make reply? Do you consider these replies satisfactory ? 4. What is his answer to the charge that he (Lincoln) is opposing the teachings of the fathers of our country? 5. How does he deal with ‘‘ popular sovereignty’”’? 6. When does he return to the direct charge that he made against Douglas in the Springfield speech? 7. Explain the quotation from the Washington Union. Does Lincoln score against Douglas in this point ? 8. Write an editorial based upon this debate for a Dem- ocratic newspaper of the time. 9. Write one for a Republican paper. 10. Write a conversation between two Illinois farmers who heard the debate. Let them talk about “popular sov- ereignty,’’ or Dred Scott, or ‘‘the Fathers,’ and let them give their impressions of the two speakers. THE COLUMBUS SPEECH 1. How does this speech compare in confidence, force, and eloquence, with the Peoria speech? With the Springfield speech ? 2. What is the purpose of the whole speech? Do you think it achieves this purpose? 3. Select the part or parts that you think an audience would remember longest. Justify your choice. 4. What is your opinion of the way Lincoln answered Douglas’s argument that the men of the Revolution were in favor of popular sovereignty ? 5. According to Lincoln, what is theimportant part of his- tory that Douglas omitted? Summarize Lincoln’s argument. 230 Questions for Study and Report 6. How does he oppose Douglas’s plan to make popular sovereignty and the Dred Scott decision work together? Who has the better of the argument? Why? 7. Where does he support the main point of his Spring- field speech? | 8. Do you agree with Douglas or with Lincoln on the argument about the African slave trade? Why? AUTOBIOGRAPHY WRITTEN FOR J. W. FELL 1. A ‘‘self-made”’ man is apt to be painfully shy and con- scious of inferiority, or crudely self-assertive. What indica- tions are there in this letter that Lincoln had a decent self- respect? What -proof is there that he was modest? Is there any humor? 2. Note that this letter, so sincere in its humility, was written less than a year before he was elected president in the most serious crisis our country has ever faced. Because he could smile at himself, he could endure having others smile at him; see his letter to Hackett (p. 200). 3. What significance is there in the remark the only time I have ever been beaten by the people? THE COOPER UNION SPEECH Before reading this speech you need to know about these: The Ordinance of 1787: The land between the Great Lakes and the Ohio, by the abandonment of claims by Massachu- setts, Connecticut, New York, and Virginia, had become the property of the United States. The Northwest Ordi- nance of 1787 organized this territory under a governor and three judges. The ordinance provided, among other things, that slavery should forever be excluded from this district. The states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wiscon- sin, were later formed out of this land. John Brown had in 1856 taken a bloody part in the Kansas struggle, murdering five men of a pro-slavery settlement. In 1859, impatient with the progress being made toward abolition, he hatched a plot to free negroes in Virginia.