9T5. 
 
 BJD221 
 
 Danielson, J. A. 
 
 Lincoln's attitude towards 
 Prohi bi ti on 
 
LINCOLN ROOM 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 LIBRARY 
 
 MEMORIAL 
 
 the Class of 1901 
 
 founded by 
 
 HARLAN HOYT HORNER 
 
 and 
 
 HENRIETTA CALHOUN HORNER 
 
o, 
 
 LINCOLN'S 
 
 ATTITUDE TOWARDS 
 
 PROHIBITION 
 
 "By 
 J. A. DANIELSON 
 
 THE FIRST EXTENSIVE TREATISE 
 FROM DOCUMENTARY SOURCES 
 ON ABRAHAM LINCOLN'S VIEWS 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 Lincoln Memorial University 
 Harrepfc. Tenm 
 
 "74-1 
 
/ 
 
 Copyright, 1927 
 
 J. A. DANIELSON 
 
 18 West 25th Street, New York, N. Y. 
 
 &*»# 
 
 Published, April, 1927 
 
 Printing by Barnes Press, Inc., New York 
 

 Lincoln's Attitude on Prohibition 
 
 This is the fifth of a series of discourses on the general 
 topic of Prohibition, and is devoted wholly to a considera- 
 tion of Lincoln's viezvs, as contained in the accepted 
 biographies and official documents, as well as authentic 
 records of his public utterances. 
 
 By J. A. Danielson 
 
 THIS is a question that now interests a great number of people: 
 What was Abraham Lincoln's attitude towards Prohibition? 
 
 It is only fair to the memory and to a proper estimate of this great 
 American to assume that, if he were alive today his attitude towards the 
 prohibition theory would remain what it was. A frail grasp on Lincoln, 
 indeed, has the person who thinks that he lacked the intelligence to form an 
 opinion that would stand after the theory's application to practical life. If 
 Lincoln favored prohibition then, let us admit that he would also favor it 
 today, and, on the other hand, if he did NOT favor this theory then, let us 
 likewise admit that he would not favor it were he alive today. 
 
 If his opinion on this question is valuable, it is so because of his foresight 
 and his ability to recognize the underlying principles of this law, and thus to 
 know whether these principles, in application, work for the welfare of the 
 nation or to its detriment. If his opinion on this question justifies the ado 
 and the controversy that is now going on, it is because it shows that he antici- 
 pated this law's effect upon society — not for any particular time, but for all 
 time — as in his day it had not been sufficiently tried in this country to enable 
 him to base an estimate upon actual experience with it. The value of his 
 opinion to us today, therefore, lies in its prophetic correctness in the light of 
 our experience with this law. 
 
 The sharp division of opinion between prohibitionists and anti-prohibition- 
 ists, and propaganda by newspaper articles, pamphlets and books — calculated 
 to throw in the influence of Lincoln on one side or the other — now call for 
 the indisputable facts that bear on this so persistently recurring question. 
 Since this law was enacted — about seven years ago — at least a half score of 
 books have been published in this country, besides innumerable newspaper 
 and magazine articles, to prove that Abraham Lincoln was a prohibitionist. 
 Not so much has been done to counteract that propaganda. To definitely 
 close this controversy does not require voluminous writing. It should suffice 
 to point out just a few facts, and, these facts generally known, this question 
 should be settled for all time. 
 
 xx xx n 
 
 AT some time in his career, Lincoln is believed to have made a definite 
 declaration against prohibition, and over the words he is alleged to 
 have uttered upon that occasion there will likely continue to be doubt and 
 controversy. The statement is challenged by prohibitionists and treasured 
 
4 CONTROVERSY OVER FAMOUS QUOTATION 
 
 by those who are opposed to that theory. The issue as to its genuineness 
 seems incapable of being definitely settled. Since the revival of prohibition 
 in this country, this famous declaration has often been referred to. If it 
 is genuine, his attitude towards this law is clear by this statement alone, but 
 there seems to be no way of ascertaining, beyond doubt, whether these words 
 actually ever crossed Lincoln's lips. 
 
 This is the statement in question : 
 
 "Prohibition zvill work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a 
 species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason 
 in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and in making 
 crimes out of things that are not crime. A prohibition law strikes a bloiv 
 at the very principle on which our government is founded. I never can give 
 my consent to such a law. Until my tongue shall be silenced in death I will 
 continue to fight for the rights of men." 
 
 Since employing this quotation in a discourse prepared some time ago, 
 protests and challenges to prove it authentic have been numerous, and many 
 of them very bitter. It may be difficult to "prove" that Lincoln made this 
 statement, but it is a fact that it has been extensively quoted as being his 
 words. There are few persons now living who might have heard the words 
 uttered, and — in the absence of official sources — any claim that they represent 
 his sentiments can have no better basis than the record of his views on the 
 liquor question. If we can ascertain just what these views were, this is of 
 far more significance than conclusions we may come to by debating fine points 
 in the controversy as to the authenticity of this particular quotation. 
 
 
 
 IF there had been any doubt about the genuineness of this declaration it 
 would not have been employed, even though the sentiments expressed har- 
 monize with Lincoln's attitude towards prohibition — as judged by his private 
 as well as his public life. There should be no desire to use statements in 
 regard to which there may be doubt as to the true source, neither is there a 
 shortage of arguments, such as to necessitate using questionable tactics. 
 
 My first acquaintance with this quotation came several years ago. Accord- 
 ing to my recollection I read it for the first time in the Overland Magazine, 
 and have since referred to that publication. It may be found in volume 53, 
 page 428, with the words, "as you propose to enact," concluding the sen- 
 tence : "I never can give my consent to such a law," indicating that the 
 declaration was made at a time when Lincoln was called upon to explain his 
 vote or his stand against prohibition. 
 
 The Overland Magazine is a high-class publication, established in 1868 
 by Bret Harte, and has been published regularly ever since. Bound volumes 
 are on file in numerous libraries in this country. The New York Library 
 has it in bound form for the fifty-eight years of the magazine's existence. 
 
 The article in which the Lincoln quotation occurs in this magazine was 
 prepared by Hartwell J. Davis, in connection with a discussion of prohibition 
 during the summer of 1909, between President Gilmore of the Model License 
 League and Francis H. Robinson. Mr. Davis contributed a signed article in 
 which the quotation is referred to, as used by Cardinal Gibbons. When the 
 Cardinal pointed to these words, as expressing Lincoln's opposition to such 
 a law, it is certain that he did not do so upon mere hearsay, but that he could 
 successfully meet any challenge that Lincoln had actually uttered them. 
 
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE VS. HEARSAY 
 
 Among other prominent men quoted in the same discussion were Herbert 
 Spencer, Tobias George Smollett, Phillips Brooks, Charles W. Eliot and 
 Oliver Wendell Holmes. There seems to have been no doubt or controversy 
 over it at that time. It is only in recent years that its genuineness has been 
 seriously challenged. 
 
 Perhaps it is unwise to argue whether Lincoln used these exact words. It 
 might seem that the whole thing depends upon it — which is not the case. 
 There is so much to indicate that he was opposed to such a law that it is 
 folly to let this brief quotation become a source of controversy. We can well 
 afford to forget this declaration, because it is, after all, only one of many 
 things pointing decisively to his opposition to the prohibition theory. Persons 
 have been led to judge Lincoln's true attitude on prohibition mainly by this 
 utterance, whereas there are many other instances, of equal or greater impor- 
 tance, over which there can not be any dispute. The trouble is that these 
 facts have never been given the publicity their significance deserves. Person- 
 ally, I have never felt just right about using this quotation, because it seems 
 impossible to ascertain the exact time, place and circumstances when it was 
 given expression. I knew of it for years before employing it ; in the mean- 
 time searching persistently to determine if it is genuine, but succeeded in 
 tracing it back only about forty years. We can give the prohibitionists all 
 the benefit of the doubt, and forget about it, for the reason already stated, 
 that there are many things in Lincoln's life which show unmistakably his 
 attitude towards prohibition. My aim in this discourse, which is especially 
 prepared to meet the challenges received after referring to these much 
 debated words, is to bring out the facts about Lincoln — what he said and did, 
 on which there can be no doubt or dispute as to authenticity. When we have 
 viewed the evidence in the case, as contained in official documents and recog- 
 nized biographical works, we shall find Lincoln where all true Americans 
 would expect to find him. 
 
 H XX 
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN was a member of the Illinois Legislature for 
 eight years — from 1834 until 1842. What he thought about the 
 prohibition idea is sufficiently well disclosed by his vote on several occasions 
 during that period, to satisfy the most skeptical. No hearsay need be de- 
 pended upon. His vote against prohibition, being recorded in the Journal 
 of the House of Representatives of the Illinois Legislature, can easily be 
 confirmed from these official sources. It will suffice at this time to mention 
 two outstanding occasions when he cast his votes against prohibition bills 
 which came before the Legislature while he was a mem(ber of that body. 
 Being a man of strict temperance — if not a total abstainer — it may reasonably 
 be expected that he offered an explanation for his negative votes on these 
 measures, and the opinion naturally prevails that it was at such a time he 
 uttered these words, in support of his stand. Unfortunately, the House 
 Journal of Illinois, like that of other States, does not contain any record 
 of debate on any measure under consideration, but is a "journal" in the tech- 
 nical meaning of the word. The report that the quotation in question may 
 be found in the Illinois House Journal may, therefore, be set down as false, 
 and should be checked. 
 
 It is not necessary to rely on tradition, when official documents contain 
 what we want to know. On December 26, 1839, the Illinois House of Repre- 
 sentatives, the Eleventh General Assembly of the Legislature — record of 
 
LINCOLN'S VOTE ON PROHIBITION BILLS 
 
 which is found on page 86 of the Journal — there was under consideration 
 "An Act for Regulating Tavern and Grocery Licenses," at which time a 
 Mr. Walker of Vermillion proposed a local option measure, as follows: 
 
 "That if a majority of the qualified voters of the Incorporated Towns, Justice 
 District, or Ward of any City in which said grocery is to be licensed, shall 
 remonstrate against the granting of such licenses, the same shall not be 
 granted." 
 
 Abraham Lincoln is recorded as having voted against this bill, which act 
 can be interpreted only in the light that he took a fundamental view of the 
 matter, and that he regarded the question of a person's right to use liquor — 
 if he desires to use it — as "exclusively his own business," and as something 
 strictly outside the jurisdiction of even the majority of the voters in any given 
 locality. The reason for putting this meaning upon his vote will be made 
 plain later in this discourse. It is evident that he did not believe in the prin- 
 ciple of entrusting our God-given rights and liberties to a fanatic majority. 
 Lincoln may well be regarded as having personally killed this budding pro- 
 hibition measure, as this bill was defeated by one vote. 
 
 Another instance of at least equal importance. In the Journal of the 
 House of Representatives of the Twelfth General Assembly of the Illinois 
 Legislature, under date of December 19, 1840 — recorded on page 136 of the 
 Journal — may be learned the fate of another bill to prohibit the sale of 
 liquor, also called "An Act to Regulate Tavern and Grocery Licenses." A 
 Mr. Murphy of Cook (Chicago) moved to strike portions of the bill and 
 insert the following: 
 
 "That after the passage of this Act, no person shall be licensed to sell vinous 
 or spirituous liquors in this State, and that any person who violates this Act 
 by selling such liquors shall be fined in the sum of one thousand dollars, to be 
 recovered before any court having competent jurisdiction." 
 
 This clause, which became known as the "Murphy State-wide Prohibition 
 Proposal," was defeated by a vote of 75 to 8, with Abraham Lincoln 
 recorded in the Journal of the House of Representatives as having moved 
 to "lay it on the table" — the polite way of killing a bill — and also listed as 
 having voted against it. 
 
 The Murphy Prohibition Bill, if passed, would have been the first 
 prohibition law to be adopted by any State in the Union, and Abraham 
 Lincoln was instrumental in its defeat. 
 
 Lincoln was a young man at this time, and this is the way he began. We 
 shall now proceed to observe other instances of equally great significance 
 in ascertaining what was his true attitude towards prohibition, tracing his 
 career for further interesting and important evidence. 
 
 ft 
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN was an advocate of TEMPERANCE, but not 
 of PROHIBITION. The "temperance" advocate of that day was 
 one who favored "habitual moderation," and he was very rarely confused 
 with the "prohibitionist," as is often the case today. The address he deliv- 
 ered before the Washingtonian Society at Springfield in 1842 is one of the 
 finest and most convincing TEMPERANCE lectures ever given by anyone. 
 It is frequently referred to by prohibitionists, as containing evidence that 
 Lincoln was opposed to all use of liquor and in favor of its abolition by law, 
 which is a most erroneous interpretation. He was aware of the danger of 
 strong drink in the hands of weak-minded people. He granted that the 
 
«3[j jms<xmfi TqtKtnr 
 
 AIM OF THE WASHINGTONIAN SOCIETY 
 
 improper use of liquor was a prolific source of evil, and he was severe in his 
 condemnation of what he termed the "ruinous effects of intemperance." 
 Prohibition was not mentioned, however, nor did he recommend the applica- 
 tion of any kind of law calling force into action. In fact, he warned against 
 such methods of dealing with a practice, which, except in the abuse, is 
 "exclusively one's own business." Pointing to this address as evidence of 
 Lincoln's approval of the principle of prohibition is highly deceptive propa- 
 ganda. The address is a powerful plea for moderation in the use of liquor, 
 and that is as far as Lincoln ever went. It should be read in its entirety 
 by people both for and against the prohibition law. And those who have 
 been given the impression that it contains any declaration in favor of this 
 law should ponder with care the following three paragraphs : 
 
 "Too much denunciation against the dram-drinker and the dram-seller has 
 been indulged in. This, I think, is both impolitic and unjust. It is impolitic 
 because it is not much in the nature of man to be driven to anything; still 
 less to be driven about that which is exclusively his own business; and, least 
 of all, where such driving is to be submitted to at the expense of pecuniary 
 interest or burning appetite. 
 
 "When the dram-seller and the drinker were incessantly told — not in 
 accents of entreaty and persuasion, diffidently addressed by erring man to 
 erring brother, but in the thundering tones of anathema and denunciation 
 with which the lordly judge often groups together all the crimes of the 
 felon's life, and thrusts them in his face ere he passes sentence of death upon 
 him — that they were the authors of all the vice and misery and crime in the 
 land; that they were the manufacturers and the material of all the thieves 
 and robbers and murderers that infest the earth; that their houses were the 
 workshops of the devil, and that their persons should be shunned by all the 
 good and virtuous, as moral pestilences — / say, when they were told all this, 
 and in this way, it is not zvonderful that they are slozv, very slozv, to acknowl- 
 edge the truth of such denunciations, and to join the ranks of the denouncers 
 in a hue and cry against themselves. 
 
 "When the conduct of men is designed to be influenced, persuasion — kind, 
 unassuming persuasion — should always be adopted." 
 
 Habitual drunkards were never more than a fraction of one per cent, of 
 those using liquor, and the "wife-beaters" less than one per cent., again, of 
 that fraction. Still anti-liquor zealotry has shouted so loud and so long 
 about that fraction of a part of one per cent, until people have come to believe 
 that men who use liquor are generally wife-beaters. Lincoln became impa- 
 tient with the exaggerations and the hysteria which marked the professional 
 reformers of that day — and which has not noticeably abated to this moment — 
 and he was keen in his criticism and ridicule of the entire class that can see 
 in a sparkling glass nothing but "rum-power," cruelty' and empty cupboards. 
 
 XX XX XX 
 
 SUCH was the method of Lincoln, in dealing with a situation which was 
 also then one of the most perplexing of social problems. What a contrast 
 to the prohibitionists' method of denunciation, so common yet today! It 
 might be well to call attention at this point to the fact that the Washingtonian 
 Society was an organization for the promotion of Temperance, and opposed 
 to the crude and impractical plan of prohibition dreamers. Lincoln called 
 the prohibitionists "theorizers," and bewailed the spirit of intolerance and 
 
8 THE "GREAT HIGH-ROAD" TO REASON 
 
 bitterness that constituted their driving force. That deplorable bitterness 
 still prevails, and is unfortunately often rekindled from the pulpits. It is 
 being perpetuated by such typical prohibitionists as the Rev. William A. 
 (Billy) Sunday, who declares in his sermons that he is going to make the 
 United States "so dry that you'll have to prime a man twice before he can 
 spit" — a favorite expression of that outstanding- so-called reformer and 
 Christian gentleman. And his disgusting language is not near as bad as the 
 temper in which he utters those words, at that. Surely, other influences 
 than those of the Humble Nazarene, or of such men as Abraham Lincoln, 
 are responsible for such a state of mind. 
 
 Contrast for a moment the frenzied tirades of the perspiring, arm-waving 
 evangelists of today — with tongues far more intemperate than throats ever 
 were — thundering from pulpit and platform, with the following mild words 
 by Abraham Lincoln, forming a part of his address to the Washingtonian 
 Society, delivered eighty- four years ago : 
 
 "If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are 
 his sincere friend. Therein is a drop of honey that catches his heart, which, 
 say what he will, is the great high-road to his reason, and which, when once 
 gained, you will find but little trouble in convincing his judgment of the 
 justice of your cause, if, indeed, that cause really be a just one. On the 
 contrary, assume to dictate to Jits judgment, or to command his action, or to 
 mark him as one to be shunned and despised, and he will retreat within 
 himself, close all the avenues of his head and his heart, and though your 
 cause be naked truth itself, transformed to the heaviest steel, and sharper 
 than steel can be made, and though you throw it with more than herculean 
 force and precision, you shall be no more able to pierce him than to penetrate 
 the hard shell of a tortoise with a rye-straw. 
 
 "Such is man, and so must he be understood by those who would lead him, 
 even to his ozvn best interests." 
 
 The Washington Society, it is evident, sought "the reformation of inebri- 
 ates," recognizing the distinction between drunkards and temperate users of 
 liquor. While it may have welcomed total abstinence pledges from anyone, 
 it solicited such pledges only from those so addicted to drink that it had 
 become their personal enemy. Its mission was to "heal the sick, not the well." 
 Abraham Lincoln congratulated the Society upon this fact, praising in 
 eloquent language the change from the theorizers' tactics of "denunciation," 
 to the "erring man to erring brother" course of procedure. He approved, 
 he assured the members of the Society, of the methods of dealing with 
 "those whom they desire to convince," not any longer as "demons, nor the 
 worst of men," but as their "old friends and companions." In speaking of 
 the Washingtonians who made up this Society, Lincoln also said : "They are 
 practical philanthropists, and they glow with a generous and brotherly zeal, 
 that mere theorizers are incapable of feeling. Benevolence and charity 
 possess their hearts; and out of their hearts their tongues give utterance. 
 'Love through all their actions runs, and all their words are mild.' In this 
 spirit they speak and act, and in the same they are heard and regarded. And 
 when such is the temper of the advocate, and such of the audience, no good 
 cause can be unsuccessful." 
 
 The Society was not devoted to a general condemnation of all use of liquor, 
 but was moderate in its aim as it was tolerant in its attitude. This may also 
 be seen by the records that have come down to our day. The annual report 
 
THE 1855 PROHIBITION REFERENDUM 
 
 of the New Haven branch, for example — dated June 22, 1842, just a year 
 after its organization — states that "the Society has held sixty public meetings, 
 most of which have been held in the Exchange saloon." The Washington 
 Temperance Society, by the way, had its origin in a bar-room — the Chase 
 Tavern in Baltimore. It was named in honor of George Washington, who 
 "always drank, but was never drunk," and it was patterned after his views 
 on temperance. As the years went by, however, a bigoted, destructive element 
 worked itself in, which would have nothing less than total abstinence and 
 prohibition for the temperate as well as for the intemperate, with the result 
 that dissension, hatred and double-dealing — which prohibition always engen- 
 ders — ultimately destroyed the Society from which Lincoln had expected so 
 much, and the aim of which he had highly extolled. 
 
 Neither the Anti-Saloon League, nor any other organization defending 
 the prohibition law, has yet circulated Lincoln's Temperance address, except 
 where it is hidden in the appendix of one or two of the books they sell. 
 The reason for withholding this address from the public may be found in 
 the parts I have referred to. The League distributes tracts quoting him in 
 garbled form, with these parts omitted, but to circulate what he actually said 
 — his Washingtonian address in its entirety and in its proper light — would 
 be damaging to prohibition. The temperament of "theorizers" is nowhere 
 better analyzed than in that address, nor their whims more scathingly rebuked. 
 Fine temperance address that it is, it is an equally fine anti-prohibition 
 address. Read it and have your friends read it ! It will drive away any 
 false impression that Lincoln approved of prohibition, and prove that he 
 was an advocate of TEMPERANCE, par excellence. Perhaps nowhere has 
 the future, as regards the elimination of the evils of intemperance, been more 
 optimistically portrayed, nor the fallacy of sumptuary laws given a more 
 stinging disapproval, than in this marvelous address by Abraham Lincoln. 
 
 XX XX XX 
 
 THE controversy over the authenticity of the Lincoln quotation already 
 referred to in this discourse is now about to be outdone by another — 
 whether Lincoln took part in the prohibition campaign in the State of 
 Illinois, in the spring and early summer of 1855. At least a half score of 
 books have been published in recent years, designed to identify him with 
 that campaign — held seventy-one years ago. To check that deception there 
 has been next to nothing in print. The truth, it seems, has been left to defend 
 itself. It will be possible to consider only a few of these books at this time — 
 the more important ones. 
 
 A fair example of this misleading literature is contained in the quite recent 
 work by Charles T. White, "Lincoln and Prohibition." This book was 
 copyrighted in 1921. Its author advances the idea that Lincoln took part 
 in the campaign for prohibition in Illinois, also that he drafted the proposed 
 law, but there is compensation in the fact that he has frankly stated what 
 has been the source of his newly acquired knowledge. This leaves one to 
 draw his own conclusions, which is fair enough. "Investigators only recently," 
 he admits, "came to an agreement that Abraham Lincoln wrote the 1855 
 prohibition law." He fails to reveal who the "investigators" were, which 
 creates a suspicion they may have been hand-picked prohibitionists. The 
 investigators came to an "agreement," he confesses. Of course it would have 
 been difficult, with the evidence at hand, to come to anything like a "conclu- 
 sion." He offers as his best evidence for this statement, that, at some time 
 
10 HISTORY OF ILLINOIS GIVES FACTS 
 
 prior to 1855 Lincoln had walked six miles on a hot day to make a "temper- 
 ance speech." Any man who walks six miles or more on a hot day to make 
 a temperance speech, is, in Mr. White's opinion, a prohibitionist beyond a 
 doubt. There is as much reason to say that a person who makes a Republican 
 speech is a Democrat, or vice versa, as in Lincoln's time "temperance" and 
 "prohibition" represented two distinctly opposite camps. However, the lack 
 of documentary evidence to sustain the claim that Lincoln took part in that 
 campaign appears to have given Mr. White at least a moment's worry. He 
 anticipated, naturally, that biographers would object to the assertion that 
 Lincoln took any such part, but he has dismissed this fear in the following 
 extraordinary logic : 
 
 "Documentary proof," he points out, "is not the only answer to any query 
 raised. The burden of proof inevitably will be upon those who contend that 
 Lincoln did NOT take a leading part in the campaign." 
 
 Weak as that defense really is, Mr. White has there stated the whole case 
 for those who contend that Lincoln took part in that campaign, and that 
 Lincoln might in any sense be called a prohibitionist. It simply says that — 
 documentary and all other evidence lacking — defense must be sought in 
 throwing out the challenge to disprove their claims. Prohibitionists harshly 
 criticise the use of the Lincoln quotation against prohibition, on the ground 
 that it lacks sufficient proof as to its genuineness, but as to Mr. White's logic 
 — which would give us a clear title to that quotation — we hear no protest. 
 According to Mr. White, an assertion, however wild, is historic fact until it 
 is scientifically disproved. Such a process of reasoning, it is to be hoped, does 
 not meet with the approval of more than a very small percentage of the pro- 
 hibitionists themselves, regardless of where the conclusions place Lincoln on 
 this issue. 
 
 Now let us see what a recognized history says. The History of Illinois 
 by Davidson and Stuve, a work that is generally regarded as authentic — 
 whose authors even favor the prohibition theory — give a fair account of the 
 referendum campaign of 1855. They say that this law was drafted by the 
 Honorable B. S. Edwards, "an eminent lawyer," who was not only the author 
 of the proposed bill, but its "principal champion." Abraham Lincoln was 
 at that time residing in Springfield, pursuing his law practice and devoting 
 his spare time to his candidacy for the United States Senate. The fact 
 should not be overlooked, that he was then a national figure, and throughout 
 the State of Illinois his activity was watched and reported in the newspapers 
 of the day. If he had taken any part in the campaign, the History of Illinois 
 would contain some mention of it, and it would then have been absurd for 
 the historians, Davidson and Stuve, to say that Mr. Edwards was its "prin- 
 cipal champion." It must be assumed that the authors of this work would 
 hesitate to identify Lincoln with this campaign, as the facts did not justify it. 
 Making such claims would have marred the integrity of their entire work. 
 It likely never occurred to them to do so, staunch prohibitionists as they 
 might have been. If they had not mentioned the campaign at all, the fact 
 that they did not identify Lincoln with it might be regarded as an oversight, 
 but reference to this work will show that they went extensively into its history 
 and stated definitely its details. 
 
 XX XX XX 
 
 MANY new "authorities" on the life of Abraham Lincoln have appeared 
 on the horizon in recent years, particularly since prohibition gained a 
 foothold in our country. New yarns about him seem to be spun daily. He 
 
PROHIBITIONISTS CALLED "THEORIZERS" H 
 
 is being quoted and misquoted on all conceivable subjects. There is enough 
 hearsay about him to fill a good-sized library. The recent work, "Latest 
 Light on Abraham Lincoln," by the Rev. Ervin Chapman — a voluminous 
 book of nearly six hundred pages — proclaims Lincoln to be the founder of 
 the prohibition movement. A perusal of its pages reveals that the author's 
 main desire is to make Lincoln appear to have been a valiant champion of 
 prohibition. Mr. Chapman offers no evidence, but an abundance of claims. 
 Here is one of his numerous assertions : 
 
 "It is a very defective and misleading history of Abraham Lincoln that 
 does not contain the information that he was AN ARDENT PROHIBI- 
 TIONIST," and that he belonged to the class of reformers "who believe in 
 the enactment and enforcement of laws forbidding the manufacture, impor- 
 tation and sale of all alcoholic liquors for beverage purposes." 
 
 The Rev. Chapman's work is unreliable and misleading in major as well 
 as minor conclusions. In dealing with the campaign in Illinois in 1855, which 
 resulted in the defeat of the prohibition proposal, Mr. Chapman makes the 
 following comment : "With the result of the election Mr. Lincoln was sorely 
 disappointed, especially the defeat of the prohibition law." 
 
 Mr. Chapman was evidently not well informed on his subject when he 
 wrote this book, containing as it does, repeated mis-statement of facts. The 
 words just quoted indicate also that the author had but a cursory knowledge 
 of the history of the prohibition referendum campaign, on which he has 
 written with such feigned authority. He tells of Lincoln's disappointment 
 with the election, "especially the defeat of the prohibition law," while, as a 
 matter of fact, there was no election at all. No offices were at stake in that 
 campaign, and no other issue involved. The Illinois Legislature had passed 
 a prohibition bill a few months prior to that time, which was to go into effect 
 only if approved by the people in a State-wide referendum. How Lincoln 
 could have been "especially" disappointed over the defeat of prohibition — 
 when there was no other issue to be concerned about — is not clear. Further- 
 more, how disappointed he really was may best be judged by his refusal to 
 turn a hand to influence the result, one way or the other. His position, as 
 judged by his stand against prohibition while he was a member of the Illinois 
 Legislature a few years prior to that time, was still clear in the minds of the 
 people, and he seemed to have been satisfied to let that remain as his gesture 
 to the voters, as indicative of his attitude towards the referendum measure. 
 What scant consolation "theorizers," as Lincoln was in the habit of calling 
 the prohibitionists, may derive from the fact that he did not actively oppose 
 this proposed law is theirs — beyond that, only with the sacrifice of facts. 
 
 The Rev. Chapman accredits his information that Lincoln was a prohibi- 
 tionist to Mayor James B. Merwin, 1 who, as a young man, was a temperance 
 worker in the army during the Civil War, and several years ago announced 
 that he and Lincoln together "stumped the State of Illinois" for prohibition 
 during the 1855 campaign. Mr. Merwin, according to his own story, 
 lunched with President Lincoln on the last day of the President's life, at 
 which time, Merwin relates, Lincoln told him that he was a prohibitionist. 
 The necessity of telling Mr. Merwin this, if they had campaigned together 
 throughout Illinois, is not commented upon, but, at any rate, he is said to 
 have reiterated his belief in such a law. Whether Lincoln ever made that 
 
 !The title "Mayor" has not been accounted for. Authors who refer to James B. 
 Merwin as their authority seem to select from a choice of titles, such as "Reverend," 
 "Honorable," "Chaplain," "Mayor" and also "Major." 
 
12 MERWIN'S TESTIMONY DISCREDITED 
 
 statement to Mr. Merwin, and whether he stumped the State of Illinois in 
 1855 with Merwin — who must then have been in his infancy — and whether 
 Mr. Merwin even lunched with the President on that or any other day, must 
 all be questioned in the complete absence of evidence of any weight whatso- 
 ever. The assertion that Lincoln took part in that campaign is without 
 reliable support in both word and document, and is plainly and abundantly 
 denied by circumstances surrounding his private life and by official records 
 his public life. The hearsay, as it is reported by numerous present-day Anti- 
 Saloon League writers, can invariably be traced to Mr. Merwin. Dr. William 
 E. Barton, in his work, "The Life of Abraham Lincoln," 1 states that 
 Robert T. Lincoln — President Lincoln's son, who recently died — denied the 
 truth of Mr. Merwin's claims that he had dined with the President on that 
 day, and that his "impression is that it is safe to omit Lincoln from the rest 
 of Mr. Merwin's recollections." Mayor Merwin, it should be noted, was 
 fanatically enthusiastic about the prohibition theory, and, in view of his 
 many absurd declarations, it is not at all unfair to assume that — like William 
 E. (Pussyfoot) Johnson, who has publicly announced that he does not 
 hesitate to say or do anything to gain his point — Mr. Merwin in his old age 
 thought, as he advanced those claims, that he saw a chance to do the world a 
 good turn by throwing in the influence of Lincoln on the side of prohibition. 
 
 XX XX 
 
 REFERENCE to James B. Merwin occurs frequently among the authors 
 who insist that Lincoln was a prohibitionist. The entire structure 
 seems to be built around this one man's testimony. He can conveniently be 
 quoted, as he was often on hand to hear things nobody else ever heard. He 
 is regarded as an authority on Lincoln, therefore. It appears, however, that 
 Nicolay and Hay, the authors of what is unquestionably the greatest biograph- 
 ical work on Lincoln in existence — in ten large volumes — mistrusted Mr. 
 Merwin, refusing to accept data which he proffered. They wrote Lincoln 
 down as "a friend of temperance in the use of spirits." Other men are 
 spoken of as "prohibitionists," but whenever reference is made to Lincoln, 
 in connection with the liquor question, he is invariably referred to by all of 
 the accepted biographers as an advocate of TEMPERANCE. This distinc- 
 tion is always made, because in that day the word "temperance" was not 
 corrupted and used interchangeably with "prohibition." Nicolay and Hay 
 did not seem to have heard that he took part in the famous prohibition cam- 
 paign in Illinois. Apparently, they wrote the biography before that idea 
 was born. They were of the opinion that Lincoln abstained from use of 
 ardent liquors during a great portion of his life, and they express with cer- 
 tainty that he refrained from its use altogether while residing in Springfield. 
 It is unlikely that he refused an occasional glass of wine, or failed to have it 
 in his home. That would have been so unusual then as to have caused consid- 
 erable comment. Even now, under bone-dry prohibition, refusal on the 
 part of prominent men to indulge is deemed sufficiently whimsical to be 
 mentioned in the newspapers of the day. Charles T. White, to whose book, 
 "Lincoln and Prohibition," I have already referred, finds the facts set 
 forth by Nicolay and Hay to be very annoying, and he laments their stating 
 the case in its true light. It is not in harmony with the "agreement" made by 
 his recent investigators. Mr. White complains bitterly that the biographers 
 
 1 Volume II, page 450. 
 
LINCOLN'S MILITANT LAW-PARTNER 13 
 
 refused to take Merwin's word for anything. "James B. Merwin offered 
 them data," he wails, "but they did not seem to want it." 
 
 Nicolay and Hay are in full accord on this point with other recognized 
 authorities on Lincoln, all of whose works are at variance with the recent 
 made-to-order biographies, for sale or indorsed by the Anti-Saloon League. 
 There is the excellent work by the Rev. William E. Barton, "The Life of 
 Abraham Lincoln," already mentioned, which traces carefully Lincoln's 
 every move and whose author seems to be unbiased. Dr. Barton does not 
 mention the Illinois prohibition referendum, further than to declare unfounded 
 the persistent reports of Lincoln's participation in it. He deals with those 
 issues in which Lincoln took part, and as he took no part in the referendum 
 campaign, there is no further mention of it. 
 
 Another standard biography is the "Life of Lincoln," by Ida M. Tarbell. 
 In her work, Miss Tarbell appears to have found nothing to indicate that 
 the Great Emancipator was an extremist on this or any other question, or, if 
 any such data was offered it was evidently not considered as authentic and 
 was omitted from the pages of her work, which is one of the greatest biogra- 
 phies of Lincoln in existence. The distinction should not fail to be made, 
 between the biographies of Abraham Lincoln which for years, for decades, 
 lave been regarded as authentic and which contain no reference to him as a 
 friend of prohibition; and, on the other hand, the recent books hastily pro- 
 duced and thrown on the market since the Anti-Saloon League, the Methodist 
 Board of Temperance, Prohibition and Public Morals, the Women's Christian 
 Temperance Union and similar organizations have created a demand for 
 literature identifying Lincoln with prohibition and depicting him as "the 
 founder of the present prohibition movement." 
 
 XX XX XX 
 
 THUS far, we have considered biographies of Abraham Lincoln that 
 have been general in tone. There are also reliable works which are 
 specific on this question. Joseph Fort Newton, author of "Lincoln and 
 Herndon," says, in connection with the referendum, that "Lincoln — neither 
 prohibitionist nor abolitionist — held aloof, not wishing to divert attention 
 from the supreme question of the age, but Herndon," he states, "plunged 
 into the thick of the fight." 
 
 This reference is to William H. Herndon, Lincoln's law partner from 1844 
 until the latter's death in the year 1865 — a period of twenty-one years. He 
 was a man of many fine qualities, though heavily addicted to drink. It is 
 stated by numerous writers of that period that Lincoln used to go to the 
 calaboose and pay Herndon's fine and bring him home after nights of dissi- 
 pation. Lincoln was criticised for continuing his partnership with him, and 
 Mrs. Lincoln appears to have strongly shared in that criticism. He an- 
 nounced, however, that he was going to "stick to 'Billy' Herndon." To Mr. 
 Herndon liquor was a personal enemy ; it was his master. He drank inter- 
 mittently, but, drunk or sober, he was a fiery prohibitionist. Like so many, 
 he wanted to prohibit others from using even temperately that which he lacked 
 the mental stamina to use properly. He was mayor of Springfield in 1855, 
 and during his term of office, and during the referendum campaign, he re- 
 mained "singularly abstemious," Mr. Newton writes. When the prohibition 
 campaign opened he threw himself forcefully into the fight, and through his 
 activity Abraham Lincoln's name became unjustly associated with the cam- 
 paign, and in this way only. 
 
14 RECORD OF "STUMP SPEECHES" MISSING 
 
 Whatever faults Herndon may have had, he was a power on the platform, 
 and he also seemed to have wielded considerable influence with his pen. His 
 participation in the campaign was intensive. He travelled about the State, 
 speaking for the prohibition referendum measure, possessing vigor and elo- 
 quence, but his method of attack was as different from that of the mild- 
 mannered Lincoln as any two methods can be. "Shut up the grocery," he 
 thundered, "smash the still, and each and all, man, widow and orphan, will 
 be benefited from the humblest to the highest!" A prohibition law, he 
 assured his hearers, would accomplish all. He damned liquor and cursed 
 those who made it. The drunkard was the victim, not the transgressor, 
 according to his views. The denunciation of liquor and its uses, now heard, 
 is an echo of the ill-tempered harangues uttered three-quarters of a century 
 ago by Herndon. Lincoln — always sober — was moderate in speech as well 
 as habits, but Herndon — often drunk — was immoderate in both. Lincoln 
 was satisfied with TEMPERANCE, while Herndon demanded nothing less 
 than absolute PROHIBITION. 
 
 William H. Herndon lived until the year 1891. During his later years he 
 produced what may be regarded as the most intimate biography of his illus- 
 trious law partner. This work was done with the collaboration of Jesse W. 
 Weik, a man of scholarly attainments. The work is complete in three vol- 
 umes. It goes into every shade of opinion held by Lincoln on public ques- 
 tions, as well as many private ones. This is significant: Herndon, himself 
 a pronounced prohibitionist, explains Lincoln's attitude on this question as 
 an advocate of TEMPERANCE. He takes evident delight in pointing out 
 where Lincoln's and his own opinions agree. It is most natural to assume 
 that had Lincoln shared with him in his views on prohibition, he would have 
 taken pride in relating that fact also. Still Herndon puts Lincoln over in 
 the other camp, and, as already pointed out, the two terms were then used 
 to describe distinctly different schools of thought. Like Nicolay and Hay, 
 Herndon and Weik say that he was "an advocate of temperance." They 
 would not do otherwise. 
 
 So much for evidence from leading biographers on Abraham Lincoln, as 
 to his attitude on prohibition, and the fiction about his participation in the 
 campaign of 1855. Let us not forget that there were newspapers in that 
 day, which followed Lincoln's every move and registered his public utterances, 
 and that the files of these newspapers are today invaluable records of what 
 then transpired. Lincoln was known at that time far outside the boundaries 
 of Illinois. He had not only served eight years in the Illinois Legislature — 
 where he combated the prohibition idea — and been a member of Congress, 
 but he had already gained renown as a defender of the Union. He had, a 
 few months prior to that time, made his famous Peoria speech, in reply to 
 Senator Douglas. Does it not seem that, had he so completely reversed him- 
 self on prohibition and taken such a part in the campaign as to "stump the 
 State" for this law, that fact too would have been mentioned in the news- 
 papers and other journals of the day? I have in my possession signed state- 
 ments from libraries in Illinois cities — mentioned by Mr. Merwin as points 
 that he and Lincoln visited during the prohibition campaign, as well as other 
 places in Illinois — declaring that no documentary substantiation exists to 
 indicate that Lincoln took part in that campaign in any way whatsoever, 
 anywhere in the State. Some of these statements are signed by the librarians 
 themselves, and have been issued after thorough search of all material that 
 
WHAT SENATOR DOUGLAS SAID 15 
 
 might throw some light on the question, including the files of the newspapers 
 of each particular locality for the entire period of time the campaign was in 
 progress. Several of these persons have been kind enough also to consult 
 "local historians" about it, with the unanimous opinion that they do not con- 
 sider Lincoln's participation in the campaign as "in any sense probable," or 
 words to that effect. Every little incident in Lincoln's life is still common 
 knowledge among the people in the Illinois cities where he spent the greater 
 part of his life, and the suggestion that perhaps he was a prohibitionist, and 
 that he might have taken part in a campaign for such a law, seems to have 
 struck some of them as rather ludicrous. Their "personal opinion," it may 
 also be noted, corresponds with the records, as well as with the views of 
 reliable biographers. A few lines in the newspaper files from that period, 
 giving accounts of Lincoln's stump-speaking tour, would serve as formidable 
 evidence. On the other hand, the absence of all such record should put" a 
 final quietus upon the absurd claims made through misleading literature now 
 being nationally circulated, and shame the authors of fabrications designed 
 to make Lincoln out a stump-speaker for the 1855 prohibition law. 
 
 XX W XX 
 
 FOR a long time there have been numerous contradictory stories in circu- 
 lation about Lincoln's habits in regard to liquor, but until a few years 
 ago only slight difference of opinion has existed as to his attitude towards 
 the theory of prohibition. A generation ago, not one per cent, of the Amer- 
 ican people thought of Lincoln as a prohibitionist. The propaganda had not 
 commenced at that time, and enough people still remembered his stand in 
 opposition to such a "law to quickly stop the nonsense if it had been seriously 
 undertaken. Now it is different. Few remain of those who may have per- 
 sonal recollections as to his attitude. Time has thus worked into the hands 
 of those who seek to have this generation regard him in the new light — as 
 a prohibitionist. The final step is to have those coming after us consider 
 Lincoln as himself "the founder of the prohibition movement." That cam- 
 paign is now well under way, and has been remarkably successful owing to 
 the fervor of its promoters and to the systematic persistency with which 
 misleading information has been disseminated. A large percentage of people 
 now sincerely believe every word of the literature that would have been gen- 
 erally laughed at a generation ago. Everyone is impressionable in the course 
 of time. With continuous hammering obvious falsehoods may be driven 
 into the minds of people. The success — though it is only temporary — of the 
 effort to make Lincoln appear to have been an adherent of the shortsighted, 
 baneful theory called "prohibition" is an injustice to his memory and to his 
 exalted name, and it verifies the statement that, by constant and persistent 
 repetition, gross falsehoods may be made to appear as the gospel truth. 
 
 Looking back over a period of about three-quarters of a century, it is 
 more difficult to definitely determine Lincoln's personal habits in the use of 
 liquor than to ascertain what were his views on prohibition. One is private, 
 while the other is public. About his personal habits, therefore, there will 
 always remain some doubt, and we can give the prohibitionists all the benefit 
 of the doubt. To what extent he used liquor, if at all, is of minor conse- 
 quence. There is evidence that in his early manhood he was liberal-minded 
 on liquor, even in the matter of consuming it — evidence to fairly substantiate 
 the claim that he was "particularly fond of whisky." Senator Douglas said 
 that "Lincoln could ruin more liquor than all the boys in the town together." 
 
16 YOUNG LINCOLN WORKED IN DISTILLERY 
 
 The liquor question occurs repeatedly in their debates. Mr. Douglas appears 
 to have taken great delight in referring to him as a "grocery keeper," which 
 in those days meant a seller of whisky. The taunts Douglas directed at him 
 as a "whisky seller" while he was part owner of a "grocery" in New Salem, 
 never seemed to have annoyed him. On one of these occasions his retort was 
 that "Lincoln was on one side of the counter and Douglas on the other 
 side." He went still further. He volunteered the information to his audi- 
 ences during debates with Senator Douglas — shortly before he became Presi- 
 dent of the United States — that he did not consider selling whisky to be "a 
 great sin," and added that he had worked, as a young man, "during the latter 
 part of one winter in a still-house up at the head of a hollow." In other 
 words, Lincoln at one time worked in a whisky distillery. 1 
 
 It would be impossible to give a list of the references used in my work to 
 establish the true status of Lincoln on the prohibition question. I am pre- 
 pared, however, to back up with recognized authority every statement I have 
 made and will make. Most of the biographical works mentioned in this 
 discourse may be found in almost any first class public library. The House 
 Journal of Illinois, however, the official record containing the data on 
 Lincoln's opposition to prohibition measures while he was a member of the 
 Legislature of that State, may not be found in more than a half dozen libra- 
 ries in the United States, outside of Illinois. In my work I have referred to 
 generally accepted biographies, as well as to legal records and documents in 
 several leading libraries in this country, principally the New York Public 
 Library, the Chicago Public Library, and a third great library on matters 
 pertaining to Abraham Lincoln, the Lincoln Library of Springfield, Illinois. 
 
 XX XX XX 
 
 OWING to the great interest in Abraham Lincoln, a mass of mythology 
 has grown up around his name. Stories, based upon this prejudice or 
 that, now spring up in quick succession. While he is being quoted and mis- 
 quoted in numerous ways, on no issue has he been misrepresented with such 
 systematic persistency as on that of prohibition, since this law was adopted. 
 There appears to be no method too contemptible to be employed even by 
 those who advertise themselves as specialists in "public morals" and respect for 
 that which is honorable. The Anti-Saloon League and its like have spent 
 untold sums of money in books, pamphlets and lectures, to have the American 
 people believe that Abraham Lincoln was a prohibitionist, first, last and all 
 the time. 
 
 If the facts in the case were not what they are, such expenditures would 
 not have been required. It is not an easy task to reverse the opinion of a 
 nation, especially in the absence of reliable data upon which to base conten- 
 tions. It is true, that there was not a great deal of preliminary work to do, 
 in the way of tearing down the structure which might be said to have existed, 
 as time has largely eliminated what was once popularly known as to Lincoln's 
 opposition to the prohibition idea. The greatest difficulty they have encoun- 
 tered has been to get something that looks like a foundation upon which to 
 
 !For the convenience of those who may regard the above statement as unbelievable, 
 I wish to refer them to page 6591, which is Volume XVI of "Masterpieces of Eto- 
 quence," edited by Mayo W. Hazeltine, Henry Cabot Lodge, William Mason, John D. 
 Long, Albert J. Beveridge, John C. Spooner and Archbishop Ireland, and published by 
 P. F. Collier & Son of New York City. 
 
REVERSING THE NATION'S OPINION \7 
 
 build the new dictum. But, cost what it will, Lincoln must be entirely made 
 over into a prohibition leader, and it is in this new and imposing light they 
 would have him loom up. Now, the American people must accept Lincoln 
 in this new role, as Apostle of Prohibition, or else rebuke the attempt so 
 dexterously being made to associate his name with prohibition, and to make 
 him appear as its outstanding champion. 
 
 Facts are stubborn things. They come to light in due time. Convincing a 
 hundred or more millions of people that something is true which is not true 
 is a tremendous job. It is doubtful if it can be done — if there are enough 
 people who prefer to live in their prejudices, and to accept as true only that 
 which conforms to their personal whims. It is not pleasant to look at the 
 dark side of things, nor to charge others with wrong intentions, but when 
 an organization has had its theories tried out on a nation for a period of 
 seven years or more, and the experiment has become more and more of a 
 failure for each year that has gone by, still the clamour is for more time, 
 more men and more money to make that theory effective, then it is not star- 
 tling that there are people, very many people, who become convinced that 
 the system is being perpetuated for the benefit of a few. This is not an 
 attempt to impute to others bad motives, more than to say that questionable 
 methods are being employed to gain what might be considered a worthy 
 enough end. The suggestion can very properly be made to the members of 
 the League to do some investigating on their own account. It is not well to 
 be too confiding in any kind of organization, especially one of a political 
 nature. One does not know what may actuate its leaders, and though they 
 may be sincere, it is possible that the methods employed for gaining their 
 ends are questionable or unwise. When that organization says, for instance, 
 that Lincoln was a prohibitionist, demand a reasonable amount of evidence 
 to substantiate that claim — evidence other than it has itself created. That is 
 fair enough. Demand reliable data. The Anti-Saloon League is a political 
 party — although a one-issue party — and as such is subject to the ills that 
 befall similar organizations, as well as prone to deception in order that its 
 own existence may be perpetuated. Now comes the announcement that the 
 League is going to cover the country "knee-deep" with literature, to use its 
 own words. The nation's disgust with the prohibition law is to be offset 
 with a flood of propaganda. Every day of the week is to be campaign day, 
 with overtime on Sunday. The work has been going strong, but it is yet to 
 be greatly speeded up. The League has a fine-working organization. It 
 prides itself on its tremendous output of literature. Circulars are now being 
 produced, bearing the very handwriting and signature of Abraham Lincoln, 
 "facsimile" documents craftily designed to show that he held to the theory 
 of prohibition. However, a careful examination of these documents reveal 
 that what Lincoln in reality advocated was TEMPERANCE, and not 
 PROHIBITION, and when a person spoke of "temperance" in those days 
 he had no thought of "prohibition," and vice versa. So-called Temperance 
 organizations have now seized upon these old facsimiles and have had them 
 reproduced, supplementing them with comments aimed to direct the readers 
 into viewing them as indorsements of Prohibition. There are, furthermore, 
 bogus facsimiles now in circulation by both sides — for and against this law. 
 It is best to put all of them in the discard, in company with the "agreement" 
 of Charles T. White's investigators, who — more than sixty years after the 
 death of Lincoln — discovered that he had been a prohibitionist. Persons 
 who disregard historic data can not be depended upon to display genuine 
 
18 LINCOLN, NOT A DEFENDER OF LIQUOR 
 
 facsimiles, or other documents. Far more importance is to be attached to 
 the conclusions of recognized biographers of Lincoln who were his associates 
 or contemporaries, and, above all, who were not biased nor disposed to make 
 out a favorable case for prohibition in order that the market for their output 
 might be the more lucrative. 
 
 XX XX 
 
 I DO not believe there is to be found anywhere in Lincoln's addresses or 
 quotations an instance where he praises liquor, but neither is there to be 
 found an instance of his advocating the prohibition theory of government as 
 the remedy for its misuse, which was common also in his day. What he may 
 have said on this question in his youth remains unknown. As a young man, 
 Lincoln acquired a great passion for argument. He loved debate, and as he 
 grew older his mental endowments and his power for logical discussion 
 became marvelously developed. With this development, it is important to 
 observe, his views broadened. As a youth he was headstrong and contentious 
 on a few subjects, particularly the Bible. Herndon relates that he often car- 
 ried the Bible with him and when he found a group of men that were disposed 
 to listen or to debate, he would read a chapter out of it and proceed to argue 
 against it. As he grew older he became more discreet, and more tolerant of 
 views that could not be reasoned out on the spur of the moment. Instead 
 of becoming narrow on a particular subject, he took a broader view of all 
 subjects. It would be highly erroneous, however, to attribute his growing 
 tolerance on all questions, and the increased comprehensiveness of his sym- 
 pathies with those who did not agree with him, as due to indifference to that 
 which was wrong. He never sacrificed principle, but he did sacrifice a great 
 deal of his early passion for promptly converting everyone, with whom he 
 came in contact, to his own views. When a vital principle was involved, it 
 can not be truthfully said of him that he was tolerant or evasive, but direct 
 and aggressive. But to classify him as a reformer, in the common accepta- 
 tion of the word today, is sadly misleading and unjust. 
 
 The character of Lincoln is so remarkable that one need not wonder that 
 so much importance is attached to things he said and did. What he thought 
 about problems over a vast range of subjects is now of universal interest. 
 His views on topics on which he expressed himself are clear and comprehen- 
 sive. The fact that he perceived and defined, three-quarters of a century 
 ago, just how a prohibition law would work out in our country today, which 
 millions of people, even after years of experience with this law, are still 
 incapable of seeing — or seeing, refuse to admit — is one of very many in- 
 stances that might be pointed to. What he is believed to have said, over 
 which there has been so much controversy, is true in the light of our country's 
 experience with prohibition. And if Lincoln did not say it, there is equal 
 consolation to be derived from the fact that there were other Americans 
 capable of putting into Lincolnian words at such a remote time what is 
 proving itself true today. 
 
 XX XX XX 
 
 THERE is a lot of speculation as to the home life of Abraham Lincoln. 
 Whether wine or any other liquor ever penetrated as far as to his dinner 
 table is greatly perturbing the reformers of today. Among his biographers 
 there is slight difference of opinion as to his habits during the years he 
 resided in Springfield. It is quite generally conceded that he partook of no 
 strong liquor during that time. Perhaps his law partner, Mr. Herndon, 
 
MRS. HAYES UPSET WHITE HOUSE CUSTOM 19 
 
 drank all that the business could stand. But as to the years he lived in the 
 White House there is considerable difference of opinion. There is not much 
 at this late day to show to what extent Lincoln used wine; perhaps for the 
 same reason that the personal habits of the present executive — in the matter 
 of food and drink — will soon be forgotten. Wine was common then ; about 
 as common as coffee is at present. Consequently, little was said and less 
 recorded about it. It might be difficult seventy-five years hence to determine 
 to what extent the late President Harding drank coffee. It was not the use 
 of liquor in those days, but the non-use, that was so uncommon as to be 
 written down. The Rev. Duncan C. Milner, in his book, "Lincoln and 
 Liquor," states that "Mrs. Lucy Webb Hayes, wife of President Rutherford 
 B. Hayes, was the first mistress of the Executive Mansion who banished 
 liquor from social functions." Such an act, it should be observed, was then 
 so out of the ordinary as to have been recorded. Mr. Milner admits, how- 
 ever, that even in her case exception was made for "distinguished guests." 
 Milner's work is indorsed by the Anti-Saloon League, being listed in the 
 group of "historical" books. It becomes evident, therefore, that not until 
 twelve years after Mrs. Lincoln was mistress of the Executive Mansion did 
 anyone there, in similar authority, abolish liquor. If Mr. Milner is historic- 
 ally correct — which may readily be granted as to this point — it is clear that 
 there was no prohibition in the White House until Mrs. Hayes upset estab- 
 lished custom several years after Mrs. Lincoln had reigned there, over the 
 Lincoln household. 
 
 The Rev. Duncan C. Milner publishes a great deal that is calculated, he 
 says, to "corroborate the claims that Lincoln spoke in favor of the prohibition 
 law in Illinois," but he is careful to mention Mayor Merwin as authority 
 for his information. A conspicuous instance is where he quotes the Mayor 
 as having declared : "Mr. Lincoln was associated with me in campaigning 
 for more than six months." There can be no great confidence placed in one 
 who makes assertions of this nature. Both Milner and Merwin must have 
 overlooked the fact that the entire campaign had less than four months' 
 duration. The Illinois Legislature passed the Prohibition Bill in the early 
 part of February, 1855, and the bill was not approved by the governor until 
 the 12th of that month. The Referendum election was held on June 4th of 
 the same year, thus confining the campaign to a period of less than four 
 months. Taking this into consideration, it is plain that careless claims have 
 been made and thoughtlessly quoted by authors of Anti-Saloon League litera- 
 ture that is now to cover the country "knee-deep." 1 
 
 This is the situation: Writers of books on Lincoln that are indorsed by 
 the League abound in absurd declarations, but all of them contend, despite 
 inconsistencies and contradictions, that he favored prohibition. Each author 
 has something new and novel, which sounds good in prohibition ears. These 
 propagandists' stories not only fail to agree one with another, but are more 
 or less at variance with standard biographies and official documents. The 
 Rev. Ervin Chapman alone, of the more prominent, is positive about Lincoln 
 being a full-fledged prohibitionist, while Rev. Duncan C. Milner, for example, 
 is satisfied for the greater part to quote other writers to that effect, and 
 balances up by also quoting authors who deny that he inclined to that theory. 
 
 iThe Prohibition Bill was termed "An Act for the Suppression of Intemperance." It 
 is published in full in the volume issued by the State of Illinois, containing the laws 
 passed by the Nineteenth General Assembly, which convened in Springfield on January 
 1st, 1855. It happens to be the first law in that volume, and commences on page 3. The 
 reader is referred to this official record, which may be found in public libraries. 
 
20 PRESIDENTS RECOMMENDED PROHIBITION 
 
 THE Anti -Saloon League has provided a tremendous market for litera- 
 ture meeting with certain requirements, and particularly this one re- 
 quirement — Lincoln was a prohibitionist. This must be the general conclu- 
 sion. The indorsement of the League should not be underestimated — what 
 it means to the author of any book or pamphlet that makes a strong blast 
 in the desirable direction. Producing something that makes good propaganda 
 evidently insures a ready sale, and censure should be no more directed 
 towards writers who play for that patronage, than towards those who trust- 
 fully absorb, from year to year, the tremendous output of that concern. 
 
 This might be considered intemperate criticism. It is not. It is charitable, 
 in view of the circumstances. Mr. White, in his ill-named book, "Lincoln 
 and Prohibition," takes up a considerable portion with the reproduction in 
 full, of the proposed 1855 Prohibition Referendum Bill of Illinois, "as it 
 was framed by Abraham Lincoln." The reader is led to believe that there 
 is no doubt about Lincoln's authorship of that law. Such misrepresentation 
 is plainly deliberate and no criticism can do justice to it. An authenticated 
 history of Illinois, which states specifically who prepared that law, should 
 have had some consideration. It has been maintained that, to publish the 
 Lincoln quotation against prohibition without giving definitely the circum- 
 stances under which it was uttered is unfair, but it should be remembered 
 that in the case of this quotation, it is a well known fact that it has been 
 extensively used without its genuineness being questioned until in recent 
 years; whereas, the author of "Lincoln and Prohibition" now springs 
 something wholly new upon the world, which a fair knowledge of Lincoln 
 should have informed him was a wretched falsehood, still presenting it as 
 established fact. Books could be written, exposing similar trickery, but a 
 few examples are all that we can deal with at this time. 
 
 Here is a famous alibi, contributed to Mr. White's book just mentioned: 
 In 1917 Mayor Merwin — who happened to be on hand to hear so many odd 
 things — made a statement wherein he anticipated difficulty in making his 
 assertions stick, because of "lack of stenographic reports of any of Lincoln's 
 addresses in the 1855 campaign." "Stenographers," he proceeds to explain, 
 "were a rarety in Illinois at that time." It is true that stenographers were a 
 "rarety" at that time, but it is remarkable that the addresses Mr. Merwin 
 asserts Lincoln made should all have failed to be reported or published in 
 the press of the day, while the address Lincoln delivered before the Wash- 
 ingtonian Society thirteen years previous to that time — when stenographers 
 were at least equally rare, and while he was comparatively little known even 
 in his own State — should have been reported and published in its entirety. 1 
 
 Unquestionably, the desire to do good has been better than the methods 
 employed by those who are responsible for the absurd and contradictory 
 stories w T hich have beclouded this question in recent years. That the ma- 
 jority of prohibition advocates have the redeeming feature of good intentions 
 may be readily granted, but as to the wisdom of the policy that the end 
 justifies the means, however worthy or unworthy, there has always been 
 doubt. It may also be granted that reprehensible methods persons employ 
 to gain a point often appear more reprehensible to one who is not in sympathy 
 
 Lincoln's address on Temperance to the Washingtonian Society of Springfield, Illi- 
 nois, was given on Washington's birthday anniversary, February 22nd, 1842, and it was 
 published on the front page of the Sangamon Weekly Journal in the first issue after 
 its delivery. 
 
FOR ALL "UNCIVILIZED TRIBES" 21 
 
 with them, but if the Anti-Saloon League does not succeed before long in 
 filling its converts to the point of saturation on false propaganda, their 
 capacity is indeed astounding. 9 
 
 XX XX 
 
 ALL the presidents of our country have approved of temperance, and 
 have publicly defended it. There is not an exception. But they have 
 all balked when pressed for approval of the prohibition theory of government. 
 Both prior to, as well as after the time of Lincoln's administration, they 
 advocated severe restrictive measures for the American Indians, and criti- 
 cised the sale of liquor among the uncivilized tribes of the world. Presidents 
 Harrison, Cleveland, McKinley and Roosevelt are quoted in the Rev. Milner's 
 book, already referred to, as having been in favor of drastic measures of 
 regulation or absolute prohibition of liquor among "all uncivilized peoples." 
 Harrison called liquor "the burning curse of Africa;" Cleveland said: "I 
 recommend prohibition of arms and intoxicants to natives in the regulated 
 zones;" Roosevelt advocated stronger measures to keep spirituous liquors 
 from the American Indians, and other "uncivilized tribes." Therefore, in 
 the opinion of Anti-Saloon Leaguers and members of the Woman's Christian 
 Temperance Union, these presidents were in reality prohibitionists, and upon 
 such ground they endeavor to justify their contentions that their theory is 
 fitting and proper for all of the American people. According to that logic, 
 the question we have to settle is whether we are a nation or a tribe. It will 
 require more effective propaganda than has heretofore been employed to 
 create the general impression that the policies recommended by our presi- 
 dents for people in the savage state were intended to be applied in the same 
 degree to the free citizenship of our country. No president of the United 
 States has yet put the entire American people on a plane with the savages, 
 and least of all did Abraham Lincoln do it. That has been done only by the 
 flourishing intolerants of our time. Of all the presidents, Lincoln stands 
 foremost, having done more than anyone else against this unwise and despotic 
 theory known as Prohibition. He voted against it, and he cautioned the 
 people against the employment of arrogant, "impolitic" methods, such as this 
 law of necessity involves. 
 
 Time does not now permit of more than brief mention of few of the 
 events in Lincoln's career, in which his actions clearly reveal his broad- 
 mindedness on the use of liquor. An attempt has been made, therefore, to 
 single out a few instances of larger significance, such as can most conveni- 
 ently be verified in public libraries. Interesting and amusing anecdotes, of 
 which there are scores, that show Lincoln's human side, have been omitted 
 from this discourse, as many of them are already well known. Before 
 closing I wish to call attention to another event of major importance in 
 Lincoln's public life that should aid one to get his viewpoint and to better 
 understand his tolerant attitude. 
 
 During the progress of the Civil War, the federal treasury got into a de- 
 plorable condition, threatening the successful prosecution of the conflict to 
 save the Union. It became necessary to devise some method of getting ready 
 money with which to operate. After consideration of various proposals, 
 Congress passed the Internal Revenue Act of 1862, which law was approved 
 and signed by President Lincoln. Charles T. White in his book, "Lincoln 
 and Prohibition," admits that Lincoln signed this bill — called by many 
 prohibitionists, the "Infernal" Revenue Act. This law, among other things, 
 placed a tax upon the liquor industry, and is therefore said to have been 
 
22 THE FEDERAL REVENUE ACT OF 1862 
 
 very reprehensible in Lincoln's opinion. There is now a scramble among 
 prohibitionists to explain how his signing this law came about, so as to 
 remove the "shocking disgrace" from his name. Mr. White explains that 
 Lincoln signed the bill with "the greatest reluctancy — at least," he says, "that 
 is the inherent probability." Here, again, Mayor Merwin comes to the 
 rescue. He happened to be on hand, according to Mr. White, and he heard 
 just what Lincoln said, as he "wrung his hands" in distress and remonstrated 
 against the proposal. "Never," President Lincoln is said to have shouted, 
 "will I give my consent to that infamy ! I had rather lose my right hand 
 than to sign a document that shall perpetuate the liquor traffic !" He is 
 described as having pranced about his office, raving like a madman. One can 
 not help but wonder why he did not make this speech and demonstration 
 before Congress, rather than to Mr. Merwin. At any rate, he signed the bill, 
 which is officially recorded and which it would be futile to deny. It has been 
 deemed better to make another explanation ; so that, for this act also, Lincoln 
 may be set aright in the eyes of prohibitionists. After he had signed the bill, 
 Mayor Merwin again happened to be around — he must have used the Presi- 
 dent's office for a hangout — and he heard Lincoln say, Mr. White also relates, 
 that "as soon as the exigencies of the war shall pass away I shall turn my 
 attention to the repeal of that document." In the light of these facts it is 
 apparent why Mayor James B. Merwin is so often quoted and why he is 
 considered an eminent authority on Lincoln's attitude towards prohibition. 
 
 This is especially significant, and no explanation by anyone — not even by 
 Mr. Merwin — has been attempted : There is no record of Lincoln ever lend- 
 ing his influence to have that Act, with its tax on liquors, repealed. The 
 federal treasury was replenished, the war was fought to its conclusion, the 
 "exigencies" passed away, the Union was saved, and Abraham Lincoln 
 remained President until the war was over, but he did not have it repealed, 
 nor is there any official record that he ever made an attempt, or even a 
 suggestion, to have it altered or repealed. This law— which President 
 Lincoln approved and signed — remained in force, with minor changes, until 
 
 less than nine years ago. 1 
 
 XX XX XX 
 
 THE organized attempt to identify the Great Emancipator with the 
 prohibition movement will not generally succeed. Insofar as it suc- 
 ceeds, it has to be accomplished through misrepresentation. Evidence to 
 confirm the true situation is too plentiful and convincing, if ever brought 
 before the people, and best of all, it is official and incontestable. What has 
 been touched upon in this brief discourse is by no means all that might be 
 said on Lincoln's attitude towards prohibition. What has been said, however, 
 has documentary sources as its basis, and challenges contradiction. We do 
 not need to rely upon unauthenticated stories and hearsay evidence. Fur- 
 thermore, most of the people prefer to have the data as found in official rec- 
 ords and works of acknowledged authorities, even though such data may not 
 coincide with their personal views. There are comparatively few, after all, 
 who are so stubbornly attached to the doctrine of prohibition as to close their 
 eyes to incontrovertible facts, and, above all, adhere to fancies based on 
 
 !For verification of the statements in connection with this law, the reader is kindly- 
 referred to The Congressional Globe (now the Congressional Record) covering the 
 Thirty-seventh Congress, Second Session. This law, entitled "An Act to Provide 
 Revenue to Support the Government and to Pay Interest on the Public Debt," was 
 passed by the Thirty-seventh Congress and was signed by President Lincoln on July 
 2nd, 1862. See Volume 59, page 3088. 
 
IT IS BEST TO FACE THE FACTS 23 
 
 prejudice. Regardless of how well meaning the prohibition leaders may be, 
 and how firmly they may believe that any method is justifiable that aids in 
 attaining a certain aim, it is nevertheless true that not many people approve 
 of that course, once they find out they are being duped. In time they will 
 generally discover and resent that their confidence has been betrayed, and 
 the reaction will assuredly be felt. 
 
 Unfortunately, too many people on both sides of this so highly contro- 
 versial question refuse to consider facts which do not tally with their pre- 
 conceived notions. It is not easy, it is true, to consider a good argument 
 against any of our pet notions for what it may be worth, but it might be 
 easier and better to deal with a bad argument and to rectify it, than to cope 
 with a situation resulting from good counsel that has gone unheeded. To 
 merely shut one's eyes to a threatening situation is dangerous. The ostrich 
 was never considered a wise bird. It might be better to face the facts today, 
 which are alarming, than to face the conditions that are inevitable if Lincoln's 
 arguments against prohibition, as well as those of other great men, should 
 happen to be well founded. 
 
 It should be remembered that whenever Lincoln discussed this question, 
 he gave no thought to — except to rebuke — the method of promoting its 
 cause by force, or by denunciation. There is not a line to indicate that he 
 believed in compelling people by law to abstain from use of liquor. His 
 appeal was of a much higher order. His appeal was directed to the intelli- 
 gence of the individual; to exhort him to moderation, to encourage him on 
 the way to regulate properly his own conduct — not to abstain, necessarily, 
 because that was "exclusively his own business," he said, but to remain 
 sober, which alone could be made the business of society. To him drunken- 
 ness was a loathsome thing, but the prohibitionists have yet to point to an 
 instance where he placed any blame for intemperance on wine, or on any other 
 kind of intoxicating beverage. He advocated temperance, and he stopped 
 there. One can not believe in both Temperance and Prohibition. The two 
 are poles apart, and Lincoln was not the mental acrobat that he could hold 
 to two such opposite views. Prohibitionists do not believe in Temperance — 
 it is not extreme enough. It is just as difficult for a person who holds to 
 Temperance to believe in Prohibition. To him it is too extreme. Prohibi- 
 tionists attempt to prevent even the exercise of temperance — the very thing 
 that Lincoln praised. They treat Temperance as an enemy, which they 
 both fear and mistrust, and seek refuge in a policy that goes to the utmost 
 limit. That policy — which embodies force and inevitably breeds ill will — 
 was foreign to Lincoln's conception of social betterment. It puts a different 
 complexion on the entire problem, and he pointed out why that plan breeds 
 contention and hatred, rather than co-operation and good will. He defined 
 the difference between reasoning with a person, "as erring man to erring 
 brother," to exercise his intelligence ; and, on the contrary, telling that person 
 in a spirit of "denunciation" — prohibition — that he is going to be deprived 
 of liquor and be compelled, irrespective of his personal wishes, to abstain 
 from its use altogether. And, if need be, the officer's club and gun are to 
 be brought into the argument, should there be any manly resistance to this 
 mandate. Those who do not see a distinction in these two methods, so 
 clearly pointed out by Lincoln, may have the very best of intentions, but 
 they need to make some observations on the peculiarities of human nature. 
 They observe no essential difference between men and fish. The prohibition 
 law thus rests upon a hopelessly defective foundation, and this is what 
 Lincoln repeatedly emphasized and which needs emphasis today. Hence, 
 
24 IF LINCOLN WERE LIVING TODAY ? 
 
 every attempt made to enforce this law is likewise defective. Enforcement 
 measures represent the same low degree of intelligence as the law itself. It 
 could hardly be otherwise, as a stream does not rise above its fountainhead. 
 Such measures may be on a par with the law itself, but not superior to it. 
 Enforcing prohibition, therefore, is very much like trying to defend a great 
 lie by telling other lies. All of the attempts to make this law a success — 
 such as poisoning liquor to prevent its use, and all the other detestable, 
 nation-shaming tricks that are tried — are on an equality with the low degree 
 of intelligence embodied in the law itself, and they must fail, just as each 
 lie to support the original lie must ultimately fail. Our country's experience 
 with prohibition proves that this comparison fits the case. To tell a bit of 
 truth about the original lie quickly destroys it, as a sound principle applied 
 to prohibition would destroy that law itself. 
 
 « » xx 
 
 REFORMED drunkards, as well as other overzealous persons, no doubt 
 mean well, but laws that are the product of people who are by inclina- 
 tion intemperate foster intemperance among those to whom they apply. Like 
 begets like. William H. Herndon, John B. Gough and other leading prohi- 
 bitionists agitated for a law to govern such persons as themselves, and the 
 success of their kind to inflict this law upon the general public was as unfor- 
 tunate and as insensible as to have a set of regulations suitable for an insane 
 asylum applied to an educational institution. It is like the blind leading 
 those who can see. The iniquity must be rectified at some time. Prohibi- 
 tion is a fit law for drunkards and for uncivilized tribes. Lincoln opposed 
 its application to an enlightened citizenship. He never advocated the adop- 
 tion of a law befitting inebriates and other irresponsibles, for the regulation 
 of people who are in the habit and in the soundness of mind to well regulate 
 their own conduct. Nor would he favor such a law today. He would have 
 to reverse his position on this question, and there is no reasonable basis for 
 the claim that he would do so. Furthermore, his stand taken more than 
 three-quarters of a century ago, when he delivered the address to which we 
 have referred, is a position he could not change today — in the light of our 
 country's experience with prohibition. Again, Lincoln had too much respect 
 for his fellow citizens to suggest imposing upon them such an insulting law 
 as even chiefs of old would not have imposed upon their vassals. He was 
 tempted more than others ; to seek the adoption of such a law for the control 
 of his own partner, Mr. Herndon, a habitual drunkard — still he would not 
 even have that. Herndon wanted such a law for Lincoln, however. There 
 we have an example of prohibition audacity. The supreme insolence of 
 interfering with a temperate and intelligent citizen in his habits of food and 
 drink, as if he were a ward in a public institution for the feeble-minded ! 
 And to associate Lincoln with this spiteful, contemptible stool-pigeon system 
 we call "prohibition H Such a slanderous accusation! If Abraham Lincoln 
 were living today it is not likely that he would dodge the issue, but oppose 
 prohibition as he did in his own time, and draw down upon himself the same 
 venomous abuse which is now being heaped upon leading men who raise 
 their voice against this law. 
 
 The prohibition law is doomed to fall — like a house built on the sand. It 
 may creak and totter for awhile, but its fall is as certain as that the sun 
 will rise tomorrow morning. None of the truly great has ever sought to 
 justify the principle this law embodies — which is the important thing. Minor 
 matters can be altered, but not that. Good intentions, unless based upon 
 
THE CRUX OF THE TEMPERANCE PROBLEM 25 
 
 right principles, mean little in this essentially practical world. The folly of 
 framing such illusory notions into law has now been amply demonstrated, 
 as prohibition is bearing its abundant fruit — corruption, graft, hypocrisy ! 
 True reform does not permit itself to be hurried by such extreme measures. 
 The government may rush the completion of a building, canal or railway, but 
 when it applies the same "efficiency" to reform it is not only impotent but 
 demoralizing. Social progress is a matter of slow degrees, which revolts 
 and causes trouble when subjected to any mechanical process. How true 
 the old proverb, "the mills of the gods grind slowly!" Prohibitionists 
 assume that there is a short-cut route to the Millennium. Their theory is not 
 a reform! in the true meaning of the word, even though it accomplished its 
 very object, because its plan is to hastily crush its way by force, rather than 
 take time to re-form. To this Lincoln called attention, and he pointed out 
 how contemptible that element of "force" is, when applied to the purpose 
 of bettering the customs of a people. It fosters a defiant spirit, he warned. 
 He pointed to the eternal truth that the element of force has no place in 
 moral advancement, and he held derision towards any plan that succeeds only 
 insofar as it may overawe a cowardly spirit of intimidation. Prohibition, 
 according to his conception, can not be successfully forced down upon us 
 unless we have become a nation of supine and sissified manhood. And then 
 it was the militant methods of the theorizers Lincoln objected to, rather than 
 their aim. He might have liked to see all the liquor wiped off the face of 
 the earth. Assuredly, anyone who thinks that he opposed prohibition in 
 defense of booze, or as a friend of the "liquor traffic," has completely failed 
 to grasp the principal, the essential idea. The merits or the demerits of liquor 
 he held immaterial and refused to debate. The problem involved greater 
 things in his estimation than his own or others' taste for intoxicants. It is 
 strange that it is so difficult to dissociate this question from the purely liquor 
 or "wet and dry" standpoint, as if that were the main factor, when it lias in 
 reality no serious bearing on the problem. Lincoln, like many others, looked 
 upon this question in the light that the elimination of spirits might be theoret- 
 ically right, but he pointed out earnestly that the prohibition method is a 
 dead-wrong way to proceed, regardless of whether the question centers about 
 liquor or anything else. This is the crux of the whole problem, yet we have 
 just closed a campaign that has in a sense been nation-wide, without the Lin- 
 colnian view ever being stressed. The discussion of the original subject has 
 degenerated from the higher plane of "temperance or intemperance," to the 
 low, the ignoble wrangle over "liquor or no liquor." We are gradually 
 losing sight of the finer things, that center about the advocacy of true tem- 
 perance, and are obliged under this law to deal with the question in its vulgar 
 aspects to the exclusion of everything else. So while it was one of the finest 
 in behalf of Temperance, Lincoln's address would be out of order today. 
 What uproar would there not be among our leading prohibitionists if he 
 were to come back and repeat what he said to the Washingtonians in 1842, 
 and declare, as he did then, that to drink liquor "is exclusively one's own 
 business !" He could not deliver his eloquent and masterful exhortations 
 for true temperance without teaching disobedience to the Eighteenth Amend- 
 ment. And it is certain that he would not permit himself to stoop to the 
 brutalities and to the deceptive, petty trickery that must accompany both great 
 and small attempts at enforcement of this law. Prohibition is out of har- 
 mony with his spirit. Let us not desecrate his memory by saying that he 
 would approve of poison liquor or padlock! His approach to the problem 
 was on a higher, a nobler plane. He appealed to the intelligence of the indi- 
 
26 OUR ACCEPTABLE GUIDE 
 
 vidual who was intemperate in his habits, throwing into his entreaties the 
 great power of his love and personality. That, friends, after all, is what 
 melts the hearts of men. Prohibitionists have thrown love to the four 
 winds, and wield the club instead ; consuming with bitterness, thinking they 
 are being actuated by mercy. They say they want to continue to use gentle 
 persuasion, but insist on reserving the right to employ more rigorous means. 
 In other words, they wish to employ both love and the club, to make doubly 
 sure of our salvation. This would seem to be very sweet of them, but if 
 they had the one in such copious measure they would loathe the other. Lin- 
 coln viewed with repugnance the fury of club-wielding reformers. He 
 abhorred everything arbitrary and tyrannical. He rebuked the application of 
 force in matters of this nature, and admonished against dealing unkindly "if 
 you. would win a man to your cause." Still, today, when the prohibitionists do 
 not discuss in military terms how to stop all use of liquor, they indulge in 
 railing invectives against everyone who does not see the question in their 
 own light. Both of these methods are out of harmony with Lincoln's way 
 of dealing with this problem. We have strayed far from his course, and 
 we have reduced this controversy to the low level of a squabble. Now, a 
 permanent solution can come about best and quickest by grasping the Lin- 
 colnian view of the principles that are involved, rather than by relying on 
 strategic maneuvering of political forces. It is a task for all friends of our 
 country as one group working in harmony — not as opposing groups, one to 
 subdue the other. What is now in order above everything else — in view of 
 the misleading literature which has flooded the country — is more investigation 
 on the part of the individual and less of confiding in the output of propaganda 
 organizations that hesitated at nothing in getting this law foistevl upon us 
 and now, despite the law's dismal failure, are as unscrupulously seeking its 
 perpetuation. We need less of "investigating" each other, and more of 
 talking things over in friendly conventions ; more co-operation, less misrep- 
 resentation. The people will yet settle this question in a creditable manner, 
 once the influence of professional reformers is broken and the campaign 
 raised to a higher plane, worthy of Lincoln's conceptions and ideals. We 
 must, first of all, be friends. To hold opposite views and still be friends is 
 a mark of intelligence. After these years of prohibition, temperance is to 
 be restored — for prohibition has worked "great injury to the cause of tem- 
 perance." It must be done by the calm and considerate, who form the ma- 
 jority of our citizenship, rather than continue to be delegated to a handful 
 of hysterical extremists. And if this unwise law was put across by trickery, 
 that does not justify its defeat by trickery. Such a solution is not lasting. 
 If the change does not come about as the result of something more funda- 
 mental than the equivalent of brute force or political chicanery, the work is 
 all in vain. Of all men, Abraham Lincoln may be accepted as our guide, 
 both in the solution of this immediate problem and in our future advocacy of 
 true temperance. He threw the most illuminating light upon this question, 
 and the course he pointed out shames the policeman's club in a campaign of 
 any worthy cause. If "persuasion — kind, unassuming persuasion" — fails, 
 we may rest assured that the greatest weapon in our possession has failed, 
 and when Abraham Lincoln had employed that weapon he was satisfied that 
 he had accomplished all that is humanly possible to accomplish, and no one 
 will ever do more. 
 
I 
 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 
 
 973 7L63B7D22L C001 
 
 LINCOLN'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS PROHIBITION N 
 
 3 0112 031799866