FAMOUS 
 SPEECHES 
 
 OF 
 
 ABRAHAM 
 
 LINCOLN 
 
 
LINCOLN ROOM 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 LIBRARY 
 
 MEMORIAL 
 
 the Class of 1901 
 
 founded by 
 
 HARLAN HOYT HORNER 
 
 and 
 
 HENRIETTA CALHOUN HORNER 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2012 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 
 
 http://archive.org/details/famousspeechesofOOIinc 
 
FAMOUS SPEECHES • ABRAHAM LINCOLN 
 
 With an Introduction by William H. Townsend 
 
 NEW ROCHELLE 
 
 P 
 
 ETER PAUPER PRESS 
 
Introduction copyright 1935 : Peter Pauper Press : Printed in U. S. A. 
 
CONTENTS 
 Introduction Page v 
 
 Address before theYoung Men's Lyceum at Spring- 
 field, Illinois. January 27,1838 I 
 
 Address on the Dred Scott Decison at Springfield, 
 
 Illinois. June 26, 1857 14 
 
 "Divided House" Speech at Springfield, Illinois. 
 
 June 17, 1858 33 
 
 Conclusion of Speech at Springfield, Illinois, clos- 
 ing the Senatorial Campaign against Stephen 
 A. Douglas. October 30, 1858 45 
 
 Address at Cooper Institute, New York. 
 
 February 27, i860 47 
 
 Farewell Address at Springfield, Illinois 
 
 February 11, 186 1 75 
 
 Address in Independence Hall, Philadelphia. 
 
 February 22, 1861 76 
 
 First Inaugural Address. March 4, 1861 78 
 
 Address at the Dedication of the Gettysburg Na- 
 tional Cemetery. November 19, 1863 92 
 
 Second Inaugural Address. March 4, 1865 94 
 
 Last Public Address. April 11, 1865 97 
 
After the bust hy Saint Gauicns 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 T 
 
 H E political philosophy of Abraham Lincoln won a 
 war, saved the Union, and made a people free* Yet this man 
 was the author of no books, compiled no voluminous tracts, 
 and wrote comparatively few letters* It was almost entirely 
 the spoken word that brought the frontier circuit rider 
 from his dingy, squalid law office at Springfield to the 
 White House* Only those who heard them can fully ap- 
 preciate the singular magnetism of Lincoln's speeches, but 
 the printed page has preserved the flavor of his unique per- 
 sonality, perhaps to a greater degree than that of any other 
 famous orator* 
 
 Sitting on the platform, Lincoln was not an imposing 
 figure* Slouched in a chair, his lean legs crossed, hands some- 
 times crammed in trousers pockets, he seemed no taller than 
 the average man* His coarse, thick, rebellious hair fell care- 
 lessly over the massive, deeply-lined forehead; his rugged, 
 swarthy face, with its angular jaws and firm up-turned chin, 
 looked careworn and haggard; his gray eyes, which lay in 
 deep caverns beneath heavy, overhanging brows, were dull, 
 dreamy, brooding* 
 
 But when he rose to speak, the audience was startled at 
 the phenomenal change in his appearance* His height of 
 six feet four inches was majestic; his clear, high-pitched 
 voice distinctly reached the outskirts of the biggest crowd; 
 the deep-set eyes now flashed and twinkled; the droll, capti- 
 
vating smile which expanded his furrowed cheeks revealed 
 a mouth full of white, regular teeth, and wreathed his whole 
 countenance in animation* 
 
 Sparing in the use of gestures, Lincoln stood squarely on 
 his feet, with hands clasped behind his back, or one hand 
 clutching the lapel of his coat and the other hanging easily 
 at his side. But his gaunt, loosely-knit frame had great ver- 
 tical elasticity, and when deeply moved, he would stretch 
 himself beyond his already enormous height, throw his 
 long, sinewy arms high above his head, pause for an instant 
 in this attitude, and then sweep his huge fists through the 
 air with a crashing emphasis that no one ever forgot* 
 
 In the backwoods of Indiana, when only fifteen years of 
 age, Lincoln began to cultivate the native talent for oratory 
 which it was soon evident he possessed* At every opportu- 
 nity he would mount a stump in the field, while the other 
 boys gathered around him, leaning on their hoes, and repeat 
 a sermon or make a speech upon some familiar topic* 
 
 The first public speakers with whom he came in contact 
 were the itinerant preachers who occupied the pulpit of 
 the Pigeon Creek Church* These uncouth, usually illiterate, 
 but earnest exponents of the gospel, with loud bellowing 
 and wild gesticulations, fervently depicted the stern, jealous, 
 vengeful God of the Old Testament, and the horrors of an 
 eternal hell of fire and brimstone* Lincoln's boyhood style 
 of speaking naturally reflected this highly emotional influ- 
 ence, but those who heard him in these early days remem- 
 bered the clarity and logic of what he said and, as it seemed 
 to them, his peculiar restraint in delivery* 
 
 vi 
 
Even then he was an earnest student of words. Morning, 
 noon and evening, whether on his way to work or eating his 
 meager lunch of cornpone and bacon, or lying before the 
 flickering light of the fireplace, he pored over Dilworth's 
 Spelling Book and saturated himself with the pure English 
 verse of the King James Bible, the quaint philosophy of 
 Aesop's Fables, and the graphic prose of John Bunyan's in- 
 spiring allegory. At New Salem, Kirkham's Grammar, the 
 Plays of Shakespeare, and the poems of Burns and Byron 
 completed the list of books which may be said to have 
 moulded his literary style, 
 
 Lincoln's life was spent in an era of formal, high sound- 
 ing oratory, speeches filled with flamboyant phrases and 
 artificial sentiment, liberally sprinkled with classical allu- 
 sions, committed to memory and delivered with gestures of 
 studied grace, often carefully rehearsed before mirrors. And, 
 during the formative period at Springfield, he did not 
 wholly escape the custom of his time. The Lyceum address, 
 though sincerely expressing high ideals and unfaltering 
 devotion to duty, is couched in turgid rhetoric which the 
 speaker discarded during the eventful years that followed, 
 
 Lincoln's public utterances vary widely in literary qual- 
 ity. There is at times a pronounced rusticity in figures of 
 speech, a mediocrity in thought and composition which 
 hardly lift his efforts above the commonplace. His lecture 
 on Discoveries and Inventions was a failure and, having 
 delivered it on three occasions, he declined further invita- 
 tions, saying, "I am not a professional lecturer. Have never 
 got up but one lecture, and that I think rather a poor one," 
 
 vii 
 
It can not be doubted that Lincoln's ability as an orator 
 lay in the forensic field, where the task was not to instruct 
 or amuse, but to convince and inspire to action. He was at 
 his best only when his emotions were strongly aroused and 
 his whole heart enlisted in a cause* The slavery agitation of 
 the early ^o's fanned the spark of Lincoln's smouldering 
 genius for expression. Abhorring human oppression, pas- 
 sionately devoted to the Union, the danger to the political 
 structure founded by the fathers stirred him as nothing 
 ever had before. 
 
 When the Missouri Compromise was repealed, Lincoln 
 came upon the hustings of Illinois with a novel form of 
 speech which provoked the ridicule of his opponents until 
 they discovered its effect upon the throngs that listened so 
 attentively. Gone were the smooth periods of classic tradi- 
 tion — the lurid rhetoric which Lincoln now humorously 
 referred to as "fizzlegigs and fireworks," These speeches 
 were marked by a stark simplicity of style, sentences of 
 short, terse, Anglo-Saxon words, quaint originality and apt- 
 ness of illustration, and a keen, slashing logic, clothed in 
 homely phrases, which the plain, quiet people understood. 
 
 There were no dogmatic assertions, no vehement denun- 
 ciation, no bombastic pretense, Lincoln did not profess to 
 know everything. He frankly admitted that the great issue 
 of the day presented problems which he did not know how 
 to solve. He had no harsh criticism for the Southern people, 
 "They are," said he at Peoria," 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 
 
would not instantly give it up," Standing there on muddy 
 wind-swept prairies and dimly lighted platforms of village 
 halls, talking the gentle language of reason, he appeared an 
 embodiment of the wisdom, the love of liberty, the patriot- 
 ism, hopes and aspirations of common men. 
 
 The House Divided speech, the Debates with Douglas, 
 and the Cooper Institute Address made Lincoln President* 
 Crushing responsibility of office and the travail of a divided 
 country wrought in him a nobility of sentiment, a depth of 
 feeling, a psychic exaltation which found expression in the 
 crystal beauty of the First Inaugural,and the sublime rhythm 
 of his great epic at Gettysburg* And when, on that memo- 
 rable Fourth of March, 1865, stooped and battered by the 
 storm of civil strife, he delivered the Second Inaugural, 
 with its simple idiomatic elegance of diction, its calm hu- 
 mility and modest dignity, radiant with the spirit of peace, 
 Lincoln the Orator entered the portal of immortality* 
 
 William H. Townsend 
 
 28 Mentelle Parky 
 Lexington, Kentucky. 
 
 IX 
 
SPEECHES OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN 
 
ADDRESS BEFORE THE YOUNG MEN'S 
 LYCEUM AT SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 
 
 S A SUBJECT for the remarks of the evening, 
 "The perpetuation of our political institutions" 
 is selected* In the great journal of things hap- 
 pening under the sun, we, the American people, 
 find our account running under date of the 
 nineteenth century of the Christian era. We find ourselves 
 in the peaceful possession of the fairest portion of the earth 
 as regards extent of territory, fertility of soil, and salubrity 
 of climate. We find ourselves under the government of a 
 system of political institutions conducing more essentially 
 to the ends of civil and religious liberty than any of which 
 the history of former times tells us. We, when mounting 
 the stage of existence, found ourselves the legal inheritors 
 of these fundamental blessings. We toiled not in the ac- 
 quirement or establishment of them; they are a legacy 
 bequeathed us by a once hardy, brave, and patriotic, but 
 now lamented and departed, race of ancestors. Theirs was 
 the task (and nobly they performed it) to possess them- 
 selves, and through themselves us, of this goodly land, and 
 to uprear upon its hills and its valleys a political edifice of 
 liberty and equal rights; 'tis ours only to transmit these — 
 the former unprofaned by the foot of an invader, the latter 
 undecayed by the lapse of time and untorn by usurpation 
 
— to the latest generation that fate shall permit the world 
 to know* This task gratitude to our fathers, justice to our- 
 selves, duty to posterity, and love for our species in general, 
 all imperatively require us faithfully to perform* 
 
 How then shall we perform it? At what point shall we 
 expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we 
 fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic mili- 
 tary giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! 
 All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with 
 all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their 
 military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could 
 not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on 
 the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years* 
 
 At what point then is the approach of danger to be 
 expecced? I answer, If it ever reach us it must spring up 
 amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be 
 our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher* As a 
 nation of freemen we must live through all time, or die by 
 suicide. 
 
 I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is even now 
 something of ill omen amongst us* I mean the increasing 
 disregard for law which pervades the country— the growing 
 disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions in 
 lieu of the sober judgment of courts, and the worse than 
 savage mobs for the executive ministers of justice. This 
 disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that 
 it now exists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit, 
 it would be a violation of truth and an insult to our intelli- 
 gence to deny* Accounts of outrages committed by mobs 
 
form the everyday news of the times* They have pervaded 
 the country from New England to Louisiana; they are 
 neither peculiar to the eternal snows of the former nor the 
 burning suns of the latter; they are not the creature of cli- 
 mate, neither are they confined to the slaveholding or the 
 non-slaveholding States, Alike they spring up among the 
 pleasure-hunting masters of Southern slaves, and the order- 
 loving citizens of the land of steady habits. Whatever then 
 their cause may be, it is common to the whole country* 
 
 It would be tedious as well as useless to recount the hor- 
 rors of all of them. Those happening in the State of Mis- 
 sissippi and at St* Louis are perhaps the most dangerous in 
 example and revolting to humanity* In the Mississippi case 
 they first commenced by hanging the regular gamblers — 
 a set of men certainly not following for a livelihood a very 
 useful or very honest occupation, but one which, so far from 
 being forbidden by the laws, was actually licensed by an act 
 of the legislature passed but a single year before* Next, 
 negroes suspected of conspiring to raise an insurrection 
 were caught up and hanged in all parts of the State; then, 
 white men supposed to be leagued with the negroes; and 
 finally, strangers from neighboring States, going thither on 
 business, were in many instances subjected to the same fate. 
 Thus went on this process of hanging, from gamblers to 
 negroes, from negroes to white citizens, and from these to 
 strangers, till dead men were seen literally dangling from 
 the boughs of trees upon every roadside, and in numbers 
 almost sufficient to rival the native Spanish moss of the 
 country as a drapery of the forest* 
 
Turn then to that horror-striking scene at St* Louis. A 
 single victim only was sacrificed there* This story is very 
 short, and is perhaps the most highly tragic of anything of 
 its length that has ever been witnessed in real life* A mulatto 
 man by the name of Mcintosh was seized in the street, 
 dragged to the suburbs of the city, chained to a tree, and 
 actually burned to death; and all within a single hour from 
 the time he had been a freeman attending to his own busi- 
 ness and at peace with the world* 
 
 Such are the effects of mob law, and such are the scenes 
 becoming more and more frequent in this land so lately 
 famed for love of law and order, and the stories of which 
 have even now grown too familiar to attract anything more 
 than an idle remark* 
 
 But you are perhaps ready to ask, "What has this to do 
 with the perpetuation of our political institutions?" I an- 
 swer,"]* has much to do with it*" Its direct consequences are, 
 comparatively speaking, but a small evil, and much of its 
 danger consists in the proneness of our minds to regard its 
 direct as its only consequences. Abstractly considered, the 
 hanging of the gamblers at Vicksburg was of but little 
 consequence* They constitute a portion of population that 
 is worse than useless in any community; and their death, 
 if no pernicious example be set by it, is never matter of 
 reasonable regret with any one* If they were annually swept 
 from the stage of existence by the plague or smallpox, hon- 
 est men would perhaps be much profited by the operation. 
 Similar too is the correct reasoning in regard to the burning 
 of the negro at St. Louis* He had forfeited his life by the 
 
perpetration of an outrageous murder upon one of the most 
 worthy and respectable citizens of the city, and had he not 
 died as he did, he must have died by the sentence of the law 
 in a very short time afterward* As to him alone, it was as 
 well the way it was as it could otherwise have been* But the 
 example in either case was fearful When men take it in 
 their heads to-day to hang gamblers or burn murderers, they 
 should recollect that in the confusion usually attending 
 such transactions they will be as likely to hang or burn some 
 one who is neither a gambler nor a murderer as one who is, 
 and that, acting upon the example they set, the mob of to- 
 morrow may, and probably will, hang or burn some of them 
 by the very same mistake. And not only so; the innocent, 
 those who have ever set their faces against violations of law 
 in every shape, alike with the guilty fall victims to the rav- 
 ages of mob law; and thus it goes on, step by step, till all the 
 walls erected for the defense of the persons and property 
 of individuals are trodden down and disregarded* But all 
 this, even, is not the full extent of the evil* By such examples, 
 by instances of the perpetrators of such acts going unpun- 
 ished, the lawless in spirit are encouraged to become lawless 
 in practice; and having been used to no restraint but dread 
 of punishment, they thus become absolutely unrestrained* 
 Having ever regarded government as their deadliest bane, 
 they make a jubilee of the suspension of its operations, and 
 pray for nothing so much as its total annihilation* While, 
 on the other hand, good men, men who love tranquillity, 
 who desire to abide by the laws and enjoy their benefits, 
 who would gladly spill their blood in the defense of their 
 
country, seeing their property destroyed, their families in- 
 sulted, and their lives endangered, their persons injured, 
 and seeing nothing in prospect that forebodes a change for 
 the better,become tired of and disgusted with a government 
 that offers them no protection, and are not much averse to 
 a change in which they imagine they have nothing to lose* 
 Thus, then, by the operation of this mobocratic spiritwhich 
 all must admit is now abroad in the land, the strongest 
 bulwark of any government, and particularly of those 
 constituted like ours, may effectually be broken down and 
 destroyed — I mean the attachment of the people* When- 
 ever this effect shall be produced among us; whenever the 
 vicious portion of population shall be permitted to gather 
 in bands of hundreds and thousands, and burn churches, 
 ravage and rob provision-stores, throw printing-presses into 
 rivers, shoot editors, and hang and burn obnoxious persons 
 at pleasure and with impunity, depend on it, this govern- 
 ment cannot last. By such things the feelings of the best 
 citizens will become more or less alienated from it, and thus 
 it will be left without friends, or with too few, and those few 
 too weak to make their friendship effectual At such a time, 
 and under such circumstances, men of sufficient talent and 
 ambition will not be wanting to seize the opportunity, strike 
 the blow, and overturn that fair fabric which for the last 
 half century has been the fondest hope of the lovers of 
 freedom throughout the world. 
 
 I know the American people are much attached to their 
 government; I know they would suffer much for its sake; I 
 know they would endure evils long and patiently before 
 
 6 
 
they would ever think of exchanging it for another, — yet, 
 notwithstanding all this, if the laws be continually despised 
 and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons 
 and property are held by no better tenure than the caprice 
 of a mob, the alienation of their affections from the gov- 
 ernment is the natural consequence; and to that, sooner or 
 later, it must come. 
 
 Here, then, is one point at which danger may be expected* 
 The question recurs, "How shall we fortify against it?" 
 The answer is simple. Let every American, every lover of 
 liberty, every well-wisher to his posterity swear by the blood 
 of the Revolution never to violate in the least particular 
 the laws of the country, and never to tolerate their violation 
 by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support 
 of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of 
 the Constitution and laws let every American pledge his 
 life, his property, and his sacred honor — let every man re- 
 member that to violate the law is to trample on the blood 
 of his father, and to tear the charter of his own and his 
 children's liberty. Let reverence for the laws be breathed 
 by every American mother to the lisping babe that prattles 
 on her lap; let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in 
 colleges; let it be written in primers, spelling-books, and in 
 almanacs; let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed 
 in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, 
 in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; 
 and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the 
 grave and the gay of all sexes and tongues and colors and 
 conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars. 
 
While ever a state of feeling such as this shall univer- 
 sally of even very generally prevail throughout the nation, 
 vain will be every effort, and fruitless every attempt, to 
 subvert our national freedom. 
 
 When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the 
 laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad 
 laws, or that grievances may not arise for the redress of 
 which no legal provisions have been made, I mean to say 
 no such thing. But I do mean to say that although bad laws, 
 if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still, 
 while they continue in force, for the sake of example they 
 should be religiously observed. So also in unprovided cases. 
 If such arise, let proper legal provisions be made for them 
 with the least possible delay, but till then let them, if not 
 too intolerable, be borne with. 
 
 There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by 
 mob law. In any case that may arise, as, for instance, the 
 promulgation of abolitionism, one of two positions is nec- 
 essarily true — that is^ the thing is right within itself, and 
 therefore deserves the protection of all law and all good 
 citizens, or it is wrong,and therefore proper to be prohibited 
 by legal enactments; and in neither case is the interposition 
 of mob law either necessary, justifiable, or excusable. 
 
 But it may be asked," Why suppose danger to our political 
 institutions? Have we not preserved them for more than 
 fifty years? And why may we not for fifty times as long"? 
 
 We hope there is no sufficient reason. We hope all danger 
 may be overcome; but to conclude that no danger may ever 
 arise would itself be extremely dangerous. There are now, 
 
 8 
 
and will hereafter be, many causes, dangerous in their ten- 
 dency, which have not existed heretofore, and which are 
 not too insignificant to merit attention* That our govern- 
 ment should have been maintained in its original form, 
 from its establishment until now, is not much to be wondered 
 at* It had many props to support it through that period, 
 which now are decayed and crumbled away* Through that 
 period it was felt by all to be an undecided experiment; now 
 it is understood to be a successful one* Then, all that sought 
 celebrity and fame and distinction expected to find them 
 in the success of that experiment* Their all was staked upon 
 it; their destiny was inseparably linked with it* Their ambi- 
 tion aspired to display before an admiring world a practical 
 demonstration of the truth of a proposition which had 
 hitherto been considered at best no better than problem- 
 atical — namely, the capability of a people to govern them- 
 selves. If they succeeded, they were to be immortalized; 
 their names were to be transferred to counties, and cities, 
 and rivers, and mountains; and to be revered and sung, 
 toasted through all time* If they failed, they were to be called 
 knaves, and fools, and fanatics for a fleeting hour; then to 
 sink and be forgotten* They succeeded* The experiment is 
 successful, and thousands have won their deathless names 
 in making it so* But the game is caught; and I believe it is 
 true that with the catching end the pleasures of the chase. 
 This field of glory is harvested, and the crop is already ap- 
 propriated* But new reapers will arise, and they too will seek 
 a field* It is to deny what the history of the world tells us is 
 true, to suppose that men of ambition and talents will not 
 
 9 
 
continue to spring up amongst us. And when they do, they 
 will as naturally seek the gratification of their ruling pas- 
 sion as others have done before them. The question then 
 is, Can that gratification be found in supporting and main- 
 taining an edifice that has been erected by others? Most 
 certainly it cannot. Many great and good men, sufficiently 
 qualified for any task they should undertake, may ever be 
 found whose ambition would aspire to nothing beyond a 
 seat in Congress, a gubernatorial or a presidential chair; 
 but such belong not to the family of the lion, or the tribe of 
 the eagle. What! think you these places would satisfy an 
 Alexander, a Caesar, or a Napoleon? Never! Towering 
 genius disdains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto 
 unexplored. It sees no distinction in adding story to story 
 upon the monuments of fame erected to the memory of 
 others. It denies that it is glory enough to serve under any 
 chief. It scorns to tread in the footsteps of any predecessor, 
 however illustrious. It thirsts and burns for distinction; 
 and if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of 
 emancipating slaves or enslaving freemen. Is it unreason- 
 able, then, to expect that some man possessed of the loftiest 
 genius, coupled with ambition sufficient to push it to its 
 utmost stretch, will at some time spring up among us? And 
 when such an one does, it will require the people to be 
 united with each other, attached to the government and 
 laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his 
 designs. 
 
 Distinction will be his paramount object, and although 
 he would as willingly, perhaps more so y acquire it by doing 
 
 IO 
 
good as harm, yet, that opportunity being past, and nothing 
 left to be done in the way of building up, he would set 
 boldly to the task of pulling down. 
 
 Here then is a probable case, highly dangerous, and such 
 an one as could not have well existed heretofore. 
 
 Another reason which once was, but which, to the same 
 extent, is now no more, has done much in maintaining our 
 institutions thus far. I mean the powerful influence which 
 the interesting scenes of the Revolution had upon the 
 passions of the people as distinguished from their judg- 
 ment. By this influence, the jealousy, envy, and avarice 
 incident to our nature, and so common to a state of peace, 
 prosperity, and conscious strength, were for the time in a 
 great measure smothered and rendered inactive, while the 
 deep-rooted principles of hate, and the powerful motive of 
 revenge, instead of being turned against each other, were 
 directed exclusively against the British nation. And thus, 
 from the force of circumstances, the basest principles of 
 our nature were either made to lie dormant, or to become 
 the active agents in the advancement of the noblest of causes 
 — that of establishing and maintaining civil and religious 
 liberty. 
 
 But this state of feeling must fade, is fading, has faded, 
 with the circumstances that produced it. 
 
 I do not mean to say that the scenes of the Revolution 
 are now or everwill be entirely forgotten, but that,like every- 
 thing else, they must fade upon the memory of the world, 
 and grow more and more dim by the lapse of time. In his- 
 tory, we hope, they will be read of, and recounted, so long 
 
 II 
 
as the Bible shall be read; but even granting that they will, 
 their influence cannot be what it heretofore has been* Even 
 then they cannot be so universally known nor so vividly 
 felt as they were by the generation just gone to rest. At the 
 close of that struggle, nearly every adult male had been a 
 participator in some of its scenes. The consequence was that 
 of those scenes, in the form of a husband, a father, a son, or 
 a brother, a living history was to be found in every family 
 — a history bearing the indubitable testimonies of its own 
 authenticity, in the limbs mangled, in the scars of wounds 
 received, in the midst of the very scenes related — a history, 
 too, that could be read and understood alike by all, the wise 
 and the ignorant, the learned and the unlearned. But those 
 histories are gone. They can be read no more forever. They 
 were a fortress of strength; but what invading foeman could 
 never do, the silent artillery of time has done — the leveling 
 of its walls. They are gone. They were a forest of giant oaks ; 
 but the all-restless hurricane has swept over them, and left 
 only here and there a lonely trunk, despoiled of its verdure, 
 shorn of its foliage, unshading and unshaded, to murmur 
 in a few more gentle breezes, and to combat with its muti- 
 lated limbs a few more ruder storms, then to sink and be 
 no more. 
 
 They were pillars of the temple of liberty; and now that 
 they have crumbled away that temple must fall unless we, 
 their descendants, supply their places with other pillars, 
 hewn from the solid quarry of sober reason. Passion has 
 helped us, but can do so no more. It will in future be our 
 enemy. Reason — cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason 
 
 12 
 
— must furnish all the materials for our future support and 
 defense. Let those materials be molded into general intel- 
 ligence, sound morality, and, in particular, a reverence for 
 the Constitution and laws; and that we improved to the 
 last, and that we remained free to the last, that we revered 
 his name to the last, that during his long sleep we permitted 
 no hostile foot to pass over or desecrate his resting-place, 
 shall be that which to learn the last trump shall awaken our 
 Washington. 
 
 Upon these let the proud fabric of freedom rest, as the 
 rock of its basis; and as truly as has been said of the only 
 greater institution, "the gates of hell shall not prevail 
 against it." 
 
 January 27, 1838. 
 
 *3 
 
ADDRESS IN SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS ON 
 THE DRED SCOTT DECISION 
 
 ELLOW-CITIZENS: I am here to-night, 
 partly by the invitation of some of you, and partly 
 by my own inclination* Two weeks ago Judge Doug- 
 las spoke here on the several subjects of Kansas, the 
 Dred Scott decision, and Utah* I listened to the speech 
 at the time, and have the report of it since* It was intended 
 to controvert opinions which I think just, and to assail 
 (politically, not personally) those men who, in common 
 with me, entertain those opinions. For this reason I wished 
 then, and still wish, to make some answer to it, which I now 
 take the opportunity of doing* 
 
 I begin with Utah* If it prove to be true, as is probable, 
 that the people of Utah are in open rebellion to the United 
 States, then Judge Douglas is in favor of repealing their 
 territorial organization, and attaching them to the adjoin- 
 ing States for judicial purposes* I say, too, if they are in 
 rebellion, they ought to be somehow coerced to obedience; 
 and I am not now prepared to admit or deny that the judge's 
 mode of coercing them is not as good as any* The Repub- 
 licans can fall in with it without taking back anything they 
 have ever said*To be sure, it would be a considerable backing 
 down by Judge Douglas from his much-vaunted doctrine 
 of self-government for the Territories; but this is only ad- 
 
 x 4 
 
ditional proof of what was very plain from the beginning, 
 that that doctrine was a mere deceitful pretense for the 
 benefit of slavery. Those who could not see that much in 
 the Nebraska act itself, which forced governors, and secre- 
 taries, and judges on the people of the Territories without 
 their choice or consent, could not be made to see, though 
 one should rise from the dead. 
 
 But in all this, it is very plain the judge evades the only 
 question the Republicans have ever pressed upon the De- 
 mocracy in regard to Utah. That question the judge well 
 knew to be this: "If the people of Utah shall peacefully 
 form a State constitution tolerating polygamy, will the 
 Democracy admit them into the Union ?" There is nothing 
 in the United States Constitution or law against polygamy; 
 and why is it not a part of the judge's "sacred right of self- 
 government" for the people to have it, or rather to keep it, 
 if they choose? These questions, so far as I know, the judge 
 never answers. It might involve the Democracy to answer 
 them either way, and they go unanswered. 
 
 As to Kansas. The substance of the judge's speech on 
 Kansas is an effort to put the free-State men in the wrong 
 for not voting at the election of delegates to the constitu- 
 tional convention. He says: "There is every reason to hope 
 and believe that the law will be fairly interpreted and im- 
 partially executed, so as to insure to every bona fide inhabit- 
 ant the free and quiet exercise of the elective franchise." 
 
 It appears extraordinary that Judge Douglas should make 
 such a statement. He knows that, by the law, no one can vote 
 who has not been registered; and he knows that the free- 
 
 15 
 
State men place their refusal to vote on the ground that 
 but few of them have been registered It is possible that this 
 is not true, but Judge Douglas knows it is asserted to be true 
 in letters, newspapers, and public speeches, and borne by 
 every mail and blown by every breeze to the eyes and ears 
 of the world* He knows it is boldly declared that the people 
 of many whole counties, and many whole neighborhoods 
 in others, are left unregistered; yet he does not venture to 
 contradict the declaration, or to point out how they can vote 
 without being registered; but he just slips along, not seem- 
 ing to know there is any such question of fact, and compla- 
 cently declares: "Thereis every reason to hope and believe 
 that the law will be fairly and impartially executed, so as to 
 insure to every bona fide inhabitant the free and quiet exer- 
 cise of the elective franchise," 
 
 I readily agree that if all had a chance to vote, they ought 
 to have voted. If, on the contrary, as they allege, and Judge 
 Douglas ventures not to particularly contradict, few only 
 of the free-State men had a chance to vote, they were 
 perfectly right in staying from the polls in a body. 
 
 By the way, since the judge spoke, the Kansas election has 
 come off. The judge expressed his confidence that all the 
 Democrats in Kansas would do their duty — including 
 "free-State Democrats," of course. The returns received 
 here as yet are very incomplete; but so far as they go, they 
 indicate that only about one sixth of the registered voters 
 have really voted; and this, too, when not more, perhaps, 
 than one half of the rightful voters have been registered, 
 thus showing the thing to have been altogether the most 
 
 16 
 
exquisite farce ever enacted I am watching with considerable 
 interest to ascertain what figure "the free-State Democrats" 
 cut in the concern* Of course they voted, — all Democrats 
 do their duty, — and of course they did not vote for slave- 
 State candidates* We soon shall know how many delegates 
 they elected, how many candidates they had pledged to a 
 free State, and how many votes were cast for them* 
 
 Allow me to barely whisper my suspicion that there were 
 no such things in Kansas as "free-State Democrats" — that 
 they were altogether mythical, good only to figure in news- 
 papers and speeches in the free States* If there should prove 
 to be one real living free-State Democrat in Kansas,I suggest 
 that it might be well to catch him, and stuff and preserve 
 his skin as an interesting specimen of that soon-to-be-extinct 
 variety of the genus Democrat* 
 
 And now as to the Dred Scott decision* That decision 
 declares two propositions — first, that a negro cannot sue in 
 the United States courts; and secondly, that Congress can- 
 not prohibit slavery in the Territories* It was made by a 
 divided court — dividing differently on the different points* 
 Judge Douglas does not discuss the merits of the decision, 
 and in that respect I shall follow his example, believing I 
 could no more improve on McLean and Curtis than he 
 could on Taney* 
 
 He denounces all who question the correctness of that 
 decision, as offering violent resistance to it* But who resists 
 it? Who has, in spite of the decision, declared Dred Scott 
 free, and resisted the authority of his master over him? 
 
 Judicial decisions have two uses — first, to absolutely 
 
 17 
 
determine the case decided; and secondly, to indicate to 
 the public how other similar cases will be decided when 
 they arise* For the latter use, they are called "precedents" 
 and "authorities," 
 
 We believe as much as Judge Douglas (perhaps more) 
 in obedience to, and respect for, the judicial department of 
 government. We think its decisions on constitutional ques- 
 tions, when fully settled, should control not only the parti- 
 cular cases decided, but the general policy of the country, 
 subject to be disturbed only by amendments of the Consti- 
 tution as provided in that instrument itself More than this 
 would be revolution. But we think the Dred Scott decision 
 is erroneous. We know the court that made it has often 
 overruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to 
 have it overrule this. We offer no resistance to it. 
 
 Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as prec- 
 edents according to circumstances. That this should be so 
 accords both with common sense and the customary under- 
 standing of the legal profession. 
 
 If this important decision had been made by the unani- 
 mous concurrence of the judges, and without any apparent 
 partizanbias,and in accordance with legal public expectation 
 and with the steady practice of the departments throughout 
 our history, and had been in no part based on assumed 
 historical facts which are not really true; or, if wanting in 
 some of these, it had been before the court more than once, 
 and had there been affirmed and reaffirmed through a 
 course of years, it then might be, perhaps would be, factious, 
 nay, even revolutionary, not to acquiesce in it as a precedent, 
 
 18 
 
But when, as is true, we find it wanting in all these claims 
 to the public confidence, it is not resistance, it is not factious, 
 it is not even disrespectful, to treat it as not having yet quite 
 established a settled doctrine for the country* But Judge 
 Douglas considers this view awful* Hear him: 
 
 "The courts are the tribunals prescribed by the Constitu- 
 tion and created by the authority of the people to determine, 
 expound, and enforce the law* Hence, whoever resists the 
 final decision of the highest judicial tribunal aims a deadly 
 blow at our whole republican system of government — a 
 blow which, if successful, would place all our rights and 
 liberties at the mercy of passion, anarchy, and violence* I 
 repeat, therefore, that if resistance to the decisions of the 
 Supreme Court of the United States, in a matter like the 
 points decided in the Dred Scott case, clearly within their 
 jurisdiction as defined by the Constitution, shall be forced 
 upon the country as a political issue, it will become a distinct 
 and naked issue between the friends and enemies of the 
 Constitution — the friends and the enemies of the suprem- 
 acy of the laws." 
 
 Why, this same Supreme Court once decided a national 
 bank to be constitutional; but General Jackson, as President 
 of the United States, disregarded the decision, and vetoed 
 a bill for a recharter, partly on constitutional ground, de- 
 claring that each public functionary must support the 
 Constitutionals he understands it*" But hear the general's 
 own words* Here they are taken from his veto message: 
 
 "It is maintained by the advocates of the bank, that its 
 constitutionality, in all its features, ought to be considered 
 
 !9 
 
as settled by precedent, and by the decision of the Supreme 
 Court* To this conclusion I cannot assent* Mere precedent 
 is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be re- 
 garded as deciding questions of constitutional power, except 
 where the acquiescence of the people and the States can be 
 considered as well settled* So far from this being the case 
 on this subject, an argument against the bank might be 
 based on precedent* One Congress, in 1791, decided in favor 
 of a bank; another, in 1811, decided against it* One Congress, 
 in 1815, decided against a bank; another, in 1816, decided in 
 its favor* Prior to the present Congress, therefore, the prec- 
 edents drawn from that source were equal* If we resort to 
 the States, the expressions of legislative, judicial, and exec- 
 utive opinions against the bank have been probably to those 
 in its favor as four to one* There is nothing in precedent, 
 therefore, which, if its authority were admitted, ought to 
 weigh in favor of the act before me," 
 
 I drop the quotations merely to remark that all there ever 
 was in the way of precedent up to the Dred Scott decision, 
 on the points therein decided, had been against the decision* 
 But hear General Jackson further: 
 
 "If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole 
 ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate 
 authorities of this government*The Congress, the executive, 
 and the court must, each for itself, be guided by its own 
 opinion of the Constitution* Each public officer who takes 
 an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will 
 support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood 
 by others*" 
 
 20 
 
Again and again have I heard Judge Douglas denounce 
 that bank decision and applaud General Jackson for disre- 
 garding it. It would be interesting for him to look over his 
 recent speech, and see how exactly his fierce philippics 
 against us for resisting Supreme Court decisions fall upon 
 his own head* It will call to mind a long and fierce political 
 war in this country, upon an issue which, in his own lan- 
 guage, and, of course, in his own changeless estimation, was 
 "a distinct issue between the friends and the enemies of 
 the Constitution," and in which war he fought in the ranks 
 of the enemies of the Constitution, 
 
 I have said, in substance, that the Dred Scott decision 
 was in part based on assumed historical facts which were 
 not really true, and I ought not to leave the subject without 
 giving some reasons for saying this; I therefore give an in- 
 stance or two, which I think fully sustain me* Chief Justice 
 Taney, in delivering the opinion of the majority of the 
 court, insists at great length that negroes were no part of 
 the people who made, or for whom was made, the Declara- 
 tion of Independence, or the Constitution of the United 
 States. 
 
 On the contrary, Judge Curtis, in his dissenting opinion, 
 shows that in five of the then thirteen States — to wit, New 
 Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and 
 North Carolina — free negroes were voters, and in propor- 
 tion to their numbers had the same part in making the 
 Constitution that the white people had* He shows this with 
 so much particularity as to leave no doubt of its truth; and 
 as a sort of conclusion on that point, holds the following: 
 
 21 
 
"The Constitution was ordained and established by the 
 people of the United States, through the action, in each 
 State, of those persons who were qualified by its laws to act 
 thereon in behalf of themselves and all other citizens of 
 the State* In some of the States, as we have seen, colored 
 persons were among those qualified by law to act on the 
 subject* These colored persons were not only included in 
 the body of 'the people of the United States' by whom the 
 Constitution was ordained and established; but in at least 
 five of the States they had the power to act, and doubtless 
 did act, by their suffrages, upon the question of its adoption*" 
 
 Again, Chief Justice Taney says: 
 
 "It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opin- 
 ion, in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in 
 the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the 
 time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the 
 Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted." 
 
 And again, after quoting from the Declaration, he says: 
 
 "The general words above quoted would seem to include 
 the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar 
 instrument at this day, would be so understood*" 
 
 In these the Chief Justice does not directly assert, but 
 plainly assumes, as a fact, that the public estimate of the 
 black man is more favorable now than it was in the days of 
 the Revolution* This assumption is a mistake* In some 
 trifling particulars the condition of that race has been 
 ameliorated; but as a whole, in this country, the change be- 
 tween then and now is decidedly the other way; and their 
 ultimate destiny has never appeared so hopeless as in the 
 
 22 
 
last three or four years. In two of the five States — New 
 Jersey and North Carolina — that then gave the free negro 
 the right of voting, the right has since been taken away, and 
 in a third — New York — it has been greatly abridged; while 
 it has not been extended, so far as I know, to a single addi- 
 tional State, though the number of the States has more 
 than doubled* In those days, as I understand, masters could, 
 at their own pleasure, emancipate their slaves; but since then 
 such legal restraints have been made upon emancipation as 
 to amount almost to prohibition* In those days legislatures 
 held the unquestioned power to abolish slavery in their re- 
 spective States, but now it is becoming quite fashionable for 
 State constitutions to withhold that power from the legis- 
 latures* In those days, by common consent, the spread of the 
 black man's bondage to the new countries was prohibited, 
 but now Congress decides that it will not continue the pro- 
 hibition, and the Supreme Court decides that it could not 
 if it would. In those days our Declaration of Independence 
 was held sacred by all, and thought to include all; but now, 
 to aid in making the bondage of the negro universal and 
 eternal, it is assailed and sneered at and construed, and 
 hawked at and torn, till, if its framers could rise from their 
 graves, they could not at all recognize it* All the powers of 
 earth seem rapidly combining against him* Mammon is 
 after him, ambition follows, philosophy follows, and the 
 theology of the day is fast joining the cry. They have him 
 in his prison-house; they have searched his person, and left 
 no prying instrument with him* One after another they 
 have closed the heavy iron doors upon him; and now they 
 
 2 3 
 
have him, as it were, bolted in with a lock of a hundred keys, 
 which can never be unlocked without the concurrence of 
 every key — the keys in the hands of a hundred different 
 men, and they scattered to a hundred different and distant 
 places; and they stand musing as to what invention, in all 
 the dominions of mind and matter, can be produced to make 
 the impossibility of his escape more complete than it is* 
 
 It is grossly incorrect to say or assume that the public es- 
 timate of the negro is more favorable now than it was at the 
 origin of the government* 
 
 Three years and a half ago, Judge Douglas brought for- 
 ward his famous Nebraska bill The country was at once in 
 a blaze* He scorned all opposition, and carried it through 
 Congress* Since then he has seen himself superseded in a 
 presidential nomination by one indorsing the general doc- 
 trine of his measure, but at the same time standing clear of 
 the odium of its untimely agitation and its gross breach of 
 national faith; and he has seen that successful rival consti- 
 tutionally elected, not by the strength of friends, but by the 
 division of adversaries, being in a popular minority of nearly 
 four hundred thousand votes. He has seen his chief aids in 
 his own State, Shields and Richardson, politically speaking, 
 successively tried, convicted, and executed for an offense 
 not their own, but his* And now he sees his own case stand- 
 ing next on the docket for trial* 
 
 There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white 
 people at the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of 
 the white and black races; and Judge Douglas evidently is 
 basing his chief hope upon the chances of his being able 
 
 2 4 
 
to appropriate the benefit of this disgust to himself. If he 
 can, by much drumming and repeating, fasten the odium 
 of that idea upon his adversaries, he thinks he can struggle 
 through the storm* He therefore clings to this hope, as a 
 drowning man to the last plank. He makes an occasion for 
 lugging it in from the opposition to the Dred Scott decision* 
 He finds the Republicans insisting that the Declaration 
 of Independence includes all men, black as well as white, 
 and forthwith he boldly denies that it includes negroes at 
 all, and proceeds to argue gravely that all who contend it 
 does, do so only because they want to vote, and eat, and sleep, 
 and marry with negroes! He will have it that they cannot 
 be consistent else* Now I protest against the counterfeit 
 logic which concludes that, because I do not want a black 
 woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife* I 
 need not have her for either* I can just leave her alone* In 
 some respects she certainly is not my equal; but in her nat- 
 ural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands 
 without asking leave of any one else, she is my equal, and 
 the equal of all others* 
 
 Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott 
 case, admits that the language of the Declaration is broad 
 enough to include the whole human family, but he and 
 Judge Douglas argue that the authors of that instrument 
 did not intend to include negroes, by the fact that they did 
 not at once actually place them on an equality with the 
 whites. Now this grave argument comes to just nothing at 
 all, by the other fact that they did not at once, or even after- 
 ward, actually place all white people on an equality with 
 
 25 
 
one another. And this is the staple argument of both the 
 chief justice and the senator for doing this obvious violence 
 to the plain, unmistakable language of the Declaration. 
 
 I think the authors of that notable instrument intended 
 to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all 
 men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were 
 equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social 
 capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what 
 respects they did consider all men created equal — equal 
 with "certain inalienable rights, among which are life, lib- 
 erty, and the pursuit of happiness." This they said, and this 
 they meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious un- 
 truth that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor 
 yet that they were about to confer it immediately upon 
 them. In fact, they had no power to confer such a boon. 
 They meant simply to declare the right, so that enforce- 
 ment of it might follow as fast as circumstances should 
 permit. 
 
 They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, 
 which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constant- 
 ly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never 
 perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby 
 constantly spreading and deepening its influence and aug- 
 menting the happiness and value of life to all people of all 
 colors everywhere. The assertion that "all men are created 
 equal" was of no practical use in effecting our separation 
 from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration 
 not for that, but for future use. Its authors meant it to be — 
 as, thank God, it is now proving itself — a stumbling-block 
 
 26 
 
to all those who in after times might seek to turn a free 
 people back into the hateful paths of despotism.They knew 
 the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants,and they meant 
 when such should reappear in this fair land and commence 
 their vocation, they should find left for them at least one 
 hard nut to crack* 
 
 I have now briefly expressed my view of the meaning and 
 object of that part of the Declaration of Independence 
 which declares that "all men are created equal" 
 
 Now let us hear Judge Douglass view of the same sub- 
 ject, as I find it in the printed report of his late speech. Here 
 it is: 
 
 "No man can vindicate the character, motives, and con- 
 duct of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, 
 except upon the hypothesis that they referred to the white 
 race alone, and not to the African, when they declared all 
 men to have been created equal; that they were speaking of 
 British subjects on this continent being equal to British 
 subjects born and residing in Great Britain; that they were 
 entitled to the same inalienable rights, and among them 
 were enumerated life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness* 
 The Declaration was adopted for the purpose of justifying 
 the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in withdraw- 
 ing their allegiance from the British crown, and dissolving 
 their connection with the mother country," 
 
 My good friends, read that carefully over some leisure 
 hour, and ponder well upon it; see what a mere wreck — 
 mangled ruin — it makes of our once glorious Declaration. 
 
 "They were speaking of British subjects on this conti- 
 
 27 
 
nent being equal to British subjects born and residing in 
 Great Britain"! Why, according to this, not only negroes 
 but white people outside of Great Britain and America 
 were not spoken of in that instrument. The English, Irish, 
 and Scotch, along with white Americans, were included, to 
 be sure, but the French, Germans, and other white people 
 of the world are all gone to pot along with the judge's 
 inferior races! 
 
 I had thought the Declaration promised something bet- 
 ter than the condition of British subjects; but no, it only 
 meant that we should be equal to them in their own op- 
 pressed and unequal condition. According to that, it gave 
 no promise that, having kicked off the king and lords of 
 Great Britain, we should not at once be saddled with a king 
 and lords of our own. 
 
 I had thought the Declaration contemplated the pro- 
 gressive improvement in the condition of all men every- 
 where; but no, it merely "was adopted for the purpose of 
 justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in 
 withdrawing their allegiance from the British crown, and 
 dissolving their connection with the mother country." Why, 
 that object having been effected some eighty years ago, the 
 Declaration is of no practical use now — mere rubbish — old 
 wadding left to rot on the battle-field after the victory is won. 
 
 I understand you are preparing to celebrate the "Fourth," 
 tomorrow week. What for? The doings of that day had no 
 reference to the present; and quite half of you are not even 
 descendants of those who were referred to at that day. But 
 I suppose you will celebrate, and will even go so far as to read 
 
 28 
 
the Declaration, Suppose, after you read it once in the old- 
 fashioned way, you read it once more with Judge Douglas's 
 version* It will then run thus: "We hold these truths to be 
 self-evident, that all British subjects who were on this con- 
 tinent eighty-one years ago, were created equal to all British 
 subjects born and then residing in Great Britain/' 
 
 And now I appeal to all — to Democrats as well as others 
 — are you really willing that the Declaration shall thus be 
 frittered away? — thus left no more, at most, than an inter- 
 esting memorial of the dead past? — thus shorn of its vitality 
 and practical value, and left without the germ or even the 
 suggestion of the individual rights of man in it? 
 
 But Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought 
 of the mixing of blood by the white and black races* Agreed 
 for once — a thousand times agreed* There are white men 
 enough to marry all the white women,and black men enough 
 to marry all the black women; and so let them be married. 
 On this point we fully agree with the judge, and when he 
 shall show that his policy is better adapted to prevent amal- 
 gamation than ours, we shall drop ours and adopt his* Let 
 us see* In 1850 there were in the United States 405,751 mu- 
 lattos* Very few of these are the offspring of whites and free 
 blacks; nearly all have sprung from black slaves and white 
 masters* A separation of the races is the only perfect pre- 
 ventive of amalgamation; but as an immediate separation 
 is impossible,the next best thing is to keep them apart where 
 they are not already together* If wh i te and black people never 
 get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas* 
 That is at least one self-evident truth* A few free colored 
 
 29 
 
persons may get into the free States, in any event; but their 
 number is too insignificant to amount to much in the way 
 of mixing blood* In 1850 there were in the free States 56,649 
 mulattos; but for the most part they were not born there — 
 they came from the slave States, ready made up. In the same 
 year the slave States had 348,874 mulattos, all of home pro- 
 duction. The proportion of free mulattos to free blacks — 
 the only colored classes in the free States — is much greater 
 in the slave than in the free States* It is worthy of note, too, 
 that among the free States those which make the colored 
 man the nearest equal to the white have proportionably the 
 fewest mulattos, the least of amalgamation* In New Hamp- 
 shire, the State which goes farthest toward equality between 
 the races, there are just 184 mulattos, while there are in Vir- 
 ginia — how many do you think? — 79,775, being 23,126 more 
 than in all the free States together. 
 
 These statistics show that slavery is the greatest source 
 of amalgamation, and next to it, not the elevation, but the 
 degradation of the free blacks. Yet Judge Douglas dreads 
 the slightest restraints on the spread of slavery, and the 
 slightest human recognition of the negro, as tending hor- 
 ribly to amalgamation. 
 
 The very Dred Scott case affords a strong test as to which 
 party most favors amalgamation, the Republicans or the 
 dear Union-saving Democracy. Dred Scott, his wife, and 
 two daughters were all involved in the suit. We desired the 
 court to have held that they were citizens so far at least as 
 to entitle them to a hearing as to whether they were free or 
 not; and then, also, that they were in fact and in law really 
 
 3° 
 
free* Could we have had our way, the chances of these black 
 girls ever mixing their blood with that of white people 
 would have been diminished at least to the extent that it 
 could not have been without their consent* But Judge 
 Douglas is delighted to have them decided to be slaves, and 
 not human enough to have a hearing, even if they were free, 
 and thus left subject to the forced concubinage of their 
 masters, and liable to become the mothers of mulattos in 
 spite of themselves: the very state of case that produces 
 nine tenths of all the mulattos — all the mixing of blood in 
 the nation* 
 
 Of course, I 'state this case as an illustration only, not 
 meaning to say or intimate that the master of Dred Scott 
 and his family, or any more than a percentage of masters 
 generally, are inclined to exercise this particular power 
 which they hold over their female slaves* 
 
 I have said that the separation of the races is the only 
 perfect preventive of amalgamation* I have no right to say 
 all the members of the Republican party are in favor of 
 this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it* There 
 is nothing in their platform directly on the subject* But I 
 can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, 
 and that the chief plank in their platform — opposition to 
 the spread of slavery— is most favorable to that separation* 
 
 Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected 
 by colonization; and no political party, as such, is now doing 
 anything directly for colonization* Party operations at pres- 
 ent only favor or retard colonization incidentally* The 
 enterprise is a difficult one; but "where there is a will there 
 
 3 1 
 
is a way," and what colonization needs most is a hearty wilL 
 Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and 
 self-interest* Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, 
 and at the same time favorable to, or at least not against, 
 our interest to transfer the African to his native clime, and 
 we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be* 
 The children of Israel, to such numbers as to include four 
 hundred thousand fighting men, went out of Egyptian 
 bondage in a body. 
 
 How differently the respective courses of the Democratic 
 and Republican parties incidentally bear on the question 
 of forming a will — a public sentiment — for colonization, 
 is easy to see. The Republicans inculcate, with whatever of 
 ability they can, that the negro is a man, that his bondage 
 is cruelly wrong, and that the field of his oppression ought 
 not to be enlarged. The Democrats deny his manhood; 
 deny, or dwarf to insignificance, the wrong of his bondage; 
 so far as possible, crush all sympathy for him, and cultivate 
 and excite hatred and disgust against him; compliment 
 themselves as Union-savers for doing so; and call the in- 
 definite outspreading of his bondage "a sacred right of 
 self government." 
 
 The plainest print cannot be read through a gold eagle; 
 and it will be ever hard to find many men who will send a 
 slave to Liberia, and pay his passage, while they can send 
 him to a new country — Kansas, for instance — and sell him 
 for fifteen hundred dollars, and the rise. 
 
 June 26, 1857 
 
 3 2 
 
THE "DIVIDED HOUSE" SPEECH AT 
 SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 
 
 . PRESIDENT and Gentlemen of the 
 Convention: If we could first know 
 where we are, and whither we are tend- 
 ing, 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 endure perma- 
 nently 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* 
 
 33 
 
Have we no tendency toward the latter condition? 
 
 Let any one who doubts carefully contemplate that now 
 almost complete legal combination — piece of machinery, 
 so to speak — compounded of the Nebraska doctrine and 
 the Dred Scott decision* Let him consider not only what 
 work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; 
 but also let him study the history 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 commenced the struggle which ended in repealing 
 that congressional prohibition*This opened all the national 
 territory to slavery, and was the first point gained* 
 
 But, so far, Congress only had acted; and an indorsement 
 by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable to save 
 the point already gained and give chance for more* 
 
 This necessity had not been overlooked, but had been 
 provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument 
 of "squatter sovereignty," otherwise called "sacred right of 
 self-government," which latter phrase, though expressive 
 of the only rightful basis of any government, was so per- 
 verted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this: 
 That if any one man choose to enslave another, no third 
 man shall be allowed to object* That argument was incor- 
 porated into the Nebraska bill itself, in the language which 
 follows: "It being the true intent and meaning of this act 
 
 34 
 
not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to 
 exclude it therefrom; but to leave the people thereof per- 
 fectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions 
 in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the 
 United States*" Then opened the roar of 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 declare that the people of the Ter- 
 ritory may exclude slavery," "Not we," said the friends of 
 the measure; and down they voted the amendment* 
 
 While the Nebraska bill was passing through Congress, 
 a law case involving the question of a negro's freedom, by 
 reason of his owner having voluntarily taken him first into 
 a free State and then into a Territory covered by the con- 
 gressional prohibition, and held him as a slave for a long 
 time in each, was passing through the United States Circuit 
 Court for the District of Missouri; and both Nebraska bill 
 and 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 made in the case* 
 Before the then next presidential election, the law case came 
 to and was argued in the Supreme Court of the United 
 States; but the decision of it was deferred until after the 
 election* Still, before the election, Senator Trumbull, on 
 the floor of the Senate, requested the leading advocate of 
 the Nebraska bill to state his opinion whether the people 
 of a Territory can constitutionally exclude slavery from 
 their limits; and the latter answered: "That is a question for 
 the Supreme Court*" 
 
 35 
 
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 short of a 
 clear popular majority by nearly four hundred thousand 
 votes, and so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly 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 
 President in his inaugural address fervently exhorted the 
 people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever it 
 might be* Then, in a few days, came the decision* 
 
 The reputed author of the Nebraska bill finds an early 
 occasion to make a speech at this capital 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 President 
 and the author of the Nebraska bill, on the mere question 
 of fact, whether the Lecompton constitution was or was 
 not, in any just sense, made by the people of Kansas; and 
 in that quarrel the latter declares that all he wants is a 
 fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether slav- 
 ery be voted down or voted up* I do not understand his 
 declaration that he cares not whether slavery be voted down 
 
 3 6 
 
or voted up to be intended by him other than as an apt defi- 
 nition of the policy he would impress upon the public mind 
 — the principle for which he declares he has suffered so 
 much, and is ready to suffer to the end* And well may he 
 cling to that principle* If he has any parental feeling, well 
 may he cling to it* That principle is the only shred left of 
 his original Nebraska doctrine* Under the Dred Scott de- 
 cision "squatter sovereignty" squatted out of existence, 
 tumbled down like temporary scaffolding,— like the mold 
 at the foundry, served through one blast and fell back into 
 loose sand, — helped to carry an election,and then was kicked 
 to the winds* His late joint struggle with the Republicans 
 against the Lecompton constitution involves nothing of 
 the original Nebraska doctrine* That struggle was made on 
 a point — the right of a people to make their own consti- 
 tution — upon which he and the Republicans have never 
 differed* 
 
 The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connec- 
 tion with Senator Douglas's "care not" policy, constitute the 
 piece of machinery in its present state of advancement* 
 This was the third point gained* The working points of 
 that machinery are: 
 
 (i) 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 Constitu- 
 tion of the United States* This point is made in order to 
 deprive the negro in every possible event of the benefit of 
 that provision of the United States Constitution which 
 declares that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to 
 
 37 
 
all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several 
 States." 
 
 (2) That, "subject to the Constitution of the United 
 States," neither Congress nor a territorial legislature can 
 exclude slavery from any United States Territory. This 
 point is made in order that individual men may fill up the 
 Territories with slaves, without danger of losing them as 
 property, and thus enhance the chances of permanency to 
 the institution through all the future. 
 
 (3) That whether the holding a negro in 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 conclusion 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 
 mold public opinion, at least Northern public opinion, not 
 to care whether slavery is voted down or voted up. This 
 shows exactly where we now are, and partially, also, whither 
 we are tending. 
 
 It will throw additional light on the latter, to go back and 
 run the mind over the string of historical facts already stat- 
 
 38 
 
ed. Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious 
 than they did when they were transpiring. The people were 
 to be left "perfectly free," "subject only to the Constitution." 
 What the Constitution 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 afterward come in, and 
 declare the perfect freedom of the people to be just no 
 freedom at all Why was the amendment expressly declar- 
 ing the right of the people voted down? Plainly enough 
 now, the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for 
 the Dred Scott decision. Why was the court decision held 
 up? Why even a senator's individual opinion withheld till 
 after the presidential election? Plainly enough now, the 
 speaking out then would have damaged the "perfectly free" 
 argument upon which the election was to be carried. Why 
 the outgoing President's felicitation on the indorsement? 
 Why the delay of a reargument? Why the incoming Pres- 
 ident's advance exhortation in favor of the decision? These 
 things look like the cautious patting and petting of a spir- 
 ited 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 exact 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 differ- 
 ent workmen, — Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for 
 instance, — and we see these timbers joined together, and 
 see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the 
 
 39 
 
tenons and mortises exactly fitting, and all the lengths and 
 proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their 
 respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, not 
 omitting even scaffolding — or, if a single piece be lacking, 
 we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared 
 yet to bring such piece in — in such a case we find it impos- 
 sible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger 
 and James all understood one another from the beginning, 
 and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up 
 before the first blow was struck* 
 
 It should not be overlooked that, by the Nebraska bill, 
 the people of a State as well as Territory were to be left 
 "perfectly free," "subject only to the Constitution." 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 rela- 
 tion to the Constitution therein treated as being precisely 
 the same? While the opinion of the court, by Chief Justice 
 Taney, in the Dred Scott case, and the separate opinions of 
 all the concurring judges, expressly declare that the Consti- 
 tution 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 omission; but who can 
 be quite sure, if McLean or Curtis had sought to get into 
 
 40 
 
the opinion a declaration of unlimited power in the people 
 of a State to exclude 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 ap- 
 proach 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 subj ect of slavery within its j ur isdiction." 
 In what cases the power of the States is so restrained by the 
 United States Constitution is left an open question, pre- 
 cisely as the same question as to the restraint on the power 
 of the Territories was left open in the Nebraska act* Put 
 this and that together, and we have another nice little niche, 
 which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme 
 Court decision declaring that the Constitution of the United 
 States does not permit a State to exclude slavery from its 
 limits. And this may especially be expected if the doctrine 
 of "care not whether slavery be voted down or voted up" 
 shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give prom- 
 ise that such a decision can be maintained when made. 
 
 Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike 
 lawful in all the States. Welcome, or unwelcome, such de- 
 cision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless 
 the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and 
 
 4 1 
 
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 us softly that Senator Douglas is 
 the aptest instrument there is with which to effect that ob- 
 ject* They wish us to infer all from the fact that he now has 
 a little quarrel with the present head of the dynasty; and 
 that he has regularly voted with us on a single point upon 
 which he and we have never differed* They remind us that 
 he is a great man, and that the largest of us are very small 
 ones* Let this be granted. But "a 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 oppose the 
 advances of slavery? He don't care anything about it* His 
 avowed mission is impressing the "public heart" to care 
 nothing about it* A leading Douglas Democratic newspa- 
 per 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 re- 
 sist it? For years he has labored to prove it a sacred right of 
 white men to take negro slaves into the new Territories* 
 Can he possibly show that it is less a sacred right to buy 
 them where they can be bought cheapest? And unquestion- 
 
 4 2 
 
ably they can be bought cheaper in Africa than in Virginia. 
 He has done all in his power to reduce the whole question 
 of slavery to one of a mere right of property; and as such, 
 how can he oppose the foreign slave-trade. How can he re- 
 fuse that trade in that "property" shall be "perfectly free," 
 unless he does it as a protection to the home production? 
 And as the home producers will probably not ask the pro- 
 tection, he will be wholly without a ground of opposition. 
 
 Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man may right- 
 fully 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 inti- 
 mation ? 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 great 
 cause may have assistance from his great ability, I hope to 
 have interposed no adventitious obstacle. But clearly, he is 
 not now with us — he does not 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 common danger, with 
 every external circumstance against us. Of strange, discord- 
 
 43 
 
ant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four 
 winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the 
 constant hot fire of adisciplined, 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* 
 
 June 17, 1858 
 
 44 
 
CONCLUSION OF SPEECH AT SPRINGFIELD 
 
 CLOSING THE SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN 
 
 AGAINST STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS 
 
 RIENDS, today closes the discussions of this 
 canvass. The planting and the culture are over; and 
 there remains but the preparation, and the harvest* 
 I stand here surrounded by friends — some political, 
 all personal friends I trust* May I be indulged, in this 
 closing scene, to say a few words of myself I have borne a 
 laborious, and, in some respects to myself, a painful part in 
 the contest* Through all, I have neither assailed, nor wrestled 
 with any part of the Constitution* The legal right of the 
 Southern people to reclaim their fugitives I have constant- 
 ly admitted* The legal right of Congress to interfere with 
 their institution in the States, I have constantly denied* In 
 resisting the spread of slavery to new territory, and with that, 
 what appears to me to be a tendency to subvert the first prin- 
 ciple of free government itself my whole effort has consisted* 
 To the best of my judgment I have labored for and not 
 against the Union* As I have not felt, so I have not expressed 
 any harsh sentiment towards our Southern brethren* I have 
 constantly declared, as I really believed, the only difference 
 between them and us, is the difference of circumstances* 
 
 45 
 
I have meant to assail the motives of no party, or indi- 
 vidual; and if I have, in any instance (of which I am not 
 conscious) departed from my purpose, I regret it* 
 
 I have said that in some respects the contest has been 
 painful to me. Myself, and those with whom I act have been 
 constantly accused of a purpose to destroy the Union; and 
 bespattered with every imaginable odious epithet; and some 
 who were friends, as it were but yesterday, have made them- 
 selves most active in this, I have cultivated patience, and 
 made no attempt at a retort* 
 
 Ambition has been ascribed to me* God knows how sin- 
 cerely I prayed from the first that this field of ambition 
 might not be opened. I claim no insensibility to political 
 honors; but today could the Missouri restriction be restored, 
 and the whole slavery question replaced on the old ground 
 of "toleration" by necessity where it exists, with unyielding 
 hostility to the spread of it, on principle, I would, in consid- 
 eration, gladly agree, that Judge Douglas should never be 
 out, and I never in, an office so long as we both or either, live. 
 
 October 30, 1858 
 
 46 
 
ADDRESS AT COOPER INSTITUTE 
 NEW YORK 
 
 / |R. PRESIDENT and Fellow-citizens of 
 / New York: The facts with which I shall 
 
 deal this evening are mainly old and 
 I familiar; nor is there anything new in 
 _JJ^_the general use I shall make of them. If 
 there shall be any novelty, it will be in the mode of present- 
 ing the facts, and the inferences and observations following 
 that presentation. In his speech last autumn at Columbus, 
 Ohio, as reported in the New York Times, Senator Douglas 
 said: 
 
 "Our fathers, when they framed the government under 
 which we live, understood this question just as well, and even 
 better, than we do now." 
 
 I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this dis- 
 course. I so adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an 
 agreed starting-point for a discussion between Republicans 
 and that wing of the Democracy headed by Senator Doug- 
 las. It simply leaves the inquiry: What was the understand- 
 ing those fathers had of the question mentioned? 
 
 What is the frame of government under which we live? 
 The answer must be, "The Constitution of the United 
 States." That Constitution consists of the original, framed 
 in 1787, and under which the present government first went 
 
 47 
 
into operation, and twelve subsequently framed amend- 
 ments, the first ten of which were framed in 1789* 
 
 Who were our fathers that framed the Constitution? I 
 suppose the "thirty-nine" who signed the original instru- 
 ment may be fairly called our fathers who framed that part 
 of the present government* It is almost exactly true to say 
 they framed it, and it is altogether true to say they fairly 
 represented the opinion and sentiment of the whole nation 
 at that time* Their names, being familiar to nearly all, and 
 accessible to quite all, need not now be repeated* 
 
 I take these "thirty-nine," for the present, as being "our 
 fathers who framed the government under which we live*" 
 What is the question which, according to the text, those 
 fathers 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, forbid our Fed- 
 eral 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 understood "better than we*" 
 Let us now inquire whether the "thirty-nine," or any of 
 them, ever acted upon this question; and if they did, how 
 they acted upon it — how they expressed that better under- 
 standing* In 1784, three years before the Constitution, the 
 United States then owning the Northwestern Territory, 
 and no other, the Congress of the Confederation had before 
 
 48 
 
them the question of prohibiting slavery in that Territory; 
 and four of the "thirty-nine" who afterward framed the 
 Constitution were in that Congress, and voted on that ques- 
 tion. 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 anything else, properly forbade the Federal 
 Government to control as to slavery in Federal territory. 
 The other of the four, James McHenry, voted against the 
 prohibition, showing that for some cause he thought it im- 
 proper to vote for it. 
 
 In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the con- 
 vention was in session framing it,and while the Northwestern 
 Territory still was the only Territory owned by the United 
 States, the same question of prohibiting slavery in the Ter- 
 ritory 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 ter- 
 ritory. This time the prohibition became a law, being part 
 of what is now well known as the ordinance of '87. 
 
 The question of Federal control of slavery in the Terri- 
 tories 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 
 
 49 
 
engaged on that instrument, expressed any opinion on that 
 precise question. 
 
 In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the Con- 
 stitution, an act was passed to enforce the ordinance of '87, 
 including the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern 
 Territory* The bill for this act was reported by one of the 
 "thirty-nine" — Thomas Fitzsimmons, then a member of 
 the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania* It went 
 through all its stages without a word of opposition, and fi- 
 nally passed both branches without ayes and nays, which is 
 equivalent to a unanimous passage. In this Congress there 
 were sixteen of the thirty-nine fathers who framed the orig- 
 inal Constitution. They were John Langdon,Nicholas Gil- 
 man, Wm. S. 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 Constitu- 
 tion, properly forbade Congress to prohibit slavery in the 
 Federal territory; else both their fidelity to correct principle, 
 and their oath to support the Constitution, would have 
 constrained them to oppose the prohibition. 
 
 Again,George Washington, another of the "thirty-nine," 
 was then President of the United States, and as such ap- 
 proved and signed the bill, thus completing its validity as a 
 law, and thus showing that, in his understanding, no line 
 dividing local from Federal authority, nor anything in the 
 
 50 
 
Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control 
 as to slavery in Federal territory. 
 
 No great while after the adoption of the original Con- 
 stitution, 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 condition by the ceding States that 
 the Federal Government should not prohibit slavery in the 
 ceded country. Besides this, slavery was then actually in 
 the ceded country. Under these circumstances, Congress, 
 on taking charge of these countries, did not absolutely pro- 
 hibit 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 
 original Constitution, They were John Langdon, George 
 Read, and Abraham Baldwin, They all probably voted for 
 it. Certainly they would have placed their opposition to it 
 upon record if, in their understanding, any line dividing 
 local from Federal authority, or anything in the Constitu- 
 tion, properly forbade the Federal Government to control 
 as to slavery in Federal territory. 
 
 In 1803 the Federal Government purchased the Louisiana 
 country. Our former territorial acquisitions came from 
 
 51 
 
certain of our own States; but this Louisiana country was 
 acquired from a foreign nation. In 1804 Congress gave a 
 territorial organization to that part of it which now consti- 
 tutes the State of Louisiana, New Orleans, lying within 
 that part, was an old and comparatively large city. There 
 were other considerable towns and settlements, and slavery 
 was extensively and thoroughly intermingled with the people. 
 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: 
 
 1st. That no slave should be imported into the Territory 
 from foreign parts. 
 
 zd. That no slave should be carried into it who had been im- 
 ported into the United States since the first day of May, 1798. 
 
 3d. That no slave should be carried into it, except by the 
 owner, and for his own use as a settler; the penalty in all the 
 cases being a fine upon the violator of the law, and freedom 
 to the slave. 
 
 This act also was passed without ayes or nays. In the Con- 
 gress 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 opposition to it if, in their understanding, 
 it violated either the line properly dividing local from Fed- 
 eral authority, or any provision of the Constitution. 
 
 In 1819-20 came and passed the Missouri question. Many 
 
 52 
 
votes were taken, by yeas and nays, in both branches of Con- 
 gress, upon the various phases of the general question. Two 
 of the "thirty-nine" — Rufus King and Charles Pinckney — 
 were members of that Congress* Mr* King steadily voted 
 for slavery prohibition and against all compromises, while 
 Mr* Pinckney as steadily voted against slavery prohibition 
 and against all compromises* By this, Mr* King showed that, 
 in his understanding, no line dividing local from 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 understand- 
 ing, there was some sufficient reason for opposing such pro- 
 hibition in that case* 
 
 The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the "thirty- 
 nine," or of any of them, upon the direct issue, which I have 
 been able to discover* 
 
 To enumerate the persons who thus acted as being four 
 in 1784, two in 1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 1798, two in 
 1804, and two in 1819-20, there would be thirty of them* But 
 this would be counting John Langdon, Roger 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 cor- 
 
 53 
 
poral oaths, acted upon the very question which the text 
 affirms they "understood just as well, and even better, than 
 we do now"; and twenty-one of them — a clear majority of 
 the whole "thirty-nine" — so acting upon it as to make them 
 guilty of gross political impropriety and wilful 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 pro- 
 hibition 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 author- 
 ity, or some provision or principle of the Constitution, stood 
 in the way; or they may, without any such question, have 
 voted against the prohibition on what appeared to them to 
 be 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 under- 
 standing, any proper division of local from Federal author- 
 
 54 
 
ity, or anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal 
 Government to control as to slavery in Federal territory. 
 
 The remaining sixteen of the "thirty-nine," so far as I 
 have discovered, have left no record of their understanding 
 upon the direct question of Federal control of slavery in 
 the Federal Territories* But there is much reason to believe 
 that their understanding upon that question would not 
 have appeared different from that of their twenty-three 
 compeers, had it been manifested at alL 
 
 For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I have 
 purposely omitted whatever understanding may have been 
 manifested by any person, however distinguished, other 
 than the thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Con- 
 stitution; and, for the same reason, I have also omitted what- 
 ever understanding may have been manifested by any of 
 the "thirty-nine" even on any other phase of the general 
 question of slavery* If we should look into their acts and 
 declarations on those other phases, as the 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 sixteen 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 
 
 55 
 
ma j ority of the whole — certainly understood that no proper 
 division of local from Federal authority, nor any part of 
 the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to con- 
 trol slavery in the Federal Territories; while all the rest had 
 probably the same understanding* Such, unquestionably, 
 was the understanding of our fathers who framed the origi- 
 nal Constitution; and the text affirms that they understood 
 the question "better than we." 
 
 But, so far, I have been considering the understanding 
 of the question manifested by the framers of the original 
 Constitution. In and by the original instrument, a mode 
 was provided for amending it; and, as I have already stated, 
 the present frame of "the government under which we live" 
 consists of that original, and twelve amendatory articles 
 framed and adopted since. Those who now insist that Fed- 
 eral 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 pro- 
 visions in diese amendatory articles, and not in the original 
 instrument. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, 
 plant themselves upon the fifth amendment, whichprovides 
 that no person shall be deprived of "life, liberty, or property 
 without due process of law"; while Senator Douglas and 
 his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the tenth 
 amendment, providing that "the powers not delegated to 
 the United States by the Constitution" "are reserved to the 
 States respectively, or to the people." 
 
 Now, it so happens that these amendments were framed 
 by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution — 
 
 56 
 
the identical Congress which passed the act, already men- 
 tioned, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the North- 
 western Territory, Not only was it the same Congress, but 
 they were the identical, same individual men who, at the 
 same session, and at the same time within the session, had 
 under consideration, and in progress toward maturity, these 
 constitutional amendments, and this act prohibiting slavery 
 in all the territory the nation then owned* The constitution- 
 al 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, including 
 sixteen of the framers of the original Constitution^ before 
 stated, were preeminently our fathers who framed that part 
 of "the government under which we live" which is now 
 claimed as forbidding the Federal Government to control 
 slavery in the Federal Territories. 
 
 Is it not a little presumptuous in any one at this day to 
 affirm that the two things which the Congress deliberately 
 framed, and carried to maturity at the same time, are abso- 
 lutely inconsistent with each other? And does not such 
 affirmation become impudently absurd when coupled with 
 the other affirmation, from the same mouth, that those who 
 did the two things alleged to be inconsistent, understood 
 whether they really were inconsistent better than we — 
 better than he who affirms that they are inconsistent? 
 
 It is surely safe to assume that the thirty-nine framers of 
 the original Constitution, and the seventy-six members of 
 
 57 
 
the Congress which framed the amendments thereto, taken 
 together, do certainly include those who maybe fairly called 
 "our fathers who framed the government under which we 
 live." And so assuming, I defy any man to show that any 
 one of them ever, in his whole life, declared that, in his un- 
 derstanding, any proper division of local from Federal 
 authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Fed- 
 eral 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 be- 
 ginning of the present century (and I might almost say prior 
 to the beginning of the last half of the present century), 
 declare that, in his understanding, any proper division of 
 local from Federal authority, or any part of the Constitu- 
 tion, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slav- 
 ery 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 mis- 
 understood. I do not mean to say we are bound to follow 
 implicitly in whatever our fathers did. To do so would be 
 to discard all the lights of current experience — to reject all 
 progress, all improvement. What I do say is that if we would 
 supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, 
 we should do so upon evidence so conclusive, and argument 
 so clear that even their great authority, fairly considered 
 
 58 
 
and weighed, cannot stand; and most surely not in a case 
 whereof we ourselves declare they understood the question 
 better than we* 
 
 If any man at this day sincerely believes that a proper 
 division of local from Federal authority, or any part of the 
 Constitution, forbids the Federal Government to control 
 as to slavery in the Federal Territories, he is right to say so, 
 and to enforce his position by all truthful 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 evidence and fair argument* If any man at this day 
 sincerely believes "our fathers who framed the government 
 under which we live" used and applied principles, in other 
 cases, which ought to have led them to understand that a 
 proper division of local from Federal authority, or some 
 part of the Constitution forbids the Federal Government 
 to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories, he is right 
 to say so* But he should, at the same time, brave the respon- 
 sibility of declaring that, in his opinion, he understands 
 their principles better than they did themselves; and espe- 
 cially should he not shirk that responsibility by asserting 
 that they "understood the question just as well, and even 
 better, than we do now*" 
 
 But enough! Let all who believe that "our fathers who 
 framed the government under which we live understood 
 this question just as well, and even better, than we do now," 
 
 59 
 
speak as they spoke, and act as they acted upon it* This is 
 all Republicans ask — all Republicans desire — in relation 
 to slavery* As those fathers marked it, so let it be again 
 marked, as an evil not to be extended, but to be tolerated 
 and protected only because of and so far as its actual pres- 
 ence among us makes that toleration and protection a ne- 
 cessity. Let all the guaranties those fathers gave it be not 
 grudgingly, 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 Southern people. 
 
 I would say to them: You consider yourselves a reasonable 
 and a just people; and I consider that in the general qual- 
 ities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any other 
 people. Still, when you speak of us Republicans, you do so 
 only to denounce us as 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 con- 
 tentions with one another, each of you deems an uncondi- 
 tional condemnation of "Black Republicanism" as the first 
 thing to be attended to. Indeed, such condemnation of us 
 seems to be an indispensable prerequisite — license, so to 
 speak — among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at 
 all. Now can you or not be prevailed upon to pause and to 
 consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to your- 
 selves? Bring forward your charges and specifications, and 
 then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify. 
 
 You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an 
 
 60 
 
issue; and the burden of proof is upon you* You produce 
 your proof; and what is it? Why, that our party has no ex- 
 istence in your section — gets no votes in your section* The 
 fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If it 
 does, then in case we should, without change of principle, 
 begin to get votes in your section, we should thereby cease 
 to be sectional* You cannot escape this conclusion; and yet, 
 are you willing to abide by it? If you are, you will probably 
 soon find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall 
 get votes in your section this very year* You will then begin 
 to discover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof does not 
 touch the issue* The fact that we get no votes in your section 
 is a fact of your making, and not of ours* And if there be 
 fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains 
 so until you show that we repel you by some wrong principle 
 or practice* If we do repel 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 
 indorse it again and again, upon their official oaths, is in fact 
 
 61 
 
so clearly wrong as to demand your condemnation without 
 a moment's consideration. 
 
 Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning 
 against sectional parties given by Washington in his Fare- 
 well Address* Less than eight years before Washington gave 
 that warning, he had, as President of the United States, 
 approved and signed an act of Congress enforcing the pro- 
 hibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory, which 
 act embodied the policy of the government upon that sub- 
 ject up to and at the very moment he penned that warning; 
 and about one year after he penned it, he wrote Lafayette 
 that he considered that prohibition a wise measure, express- 
 ing in the same connection his hope that we should 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 point- 
 ing to the right application of it. 
 
 But you say you are conservative — eminently conserva- 
 tive — 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 
 
 62 
 
accord, reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and 
 insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree 
 among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be* You 
 are divided on new propositions and plans,but you are unan- 
 imous 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 theTerritories; 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 "gur-reat 
 pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no 
 third man should object," fantastically called "popular sov- 
 ereignty"; 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 
 
 6 3 
 
the same conditions* If you would have the peace of the old 
 times, readopt the precepts and policy of the old times* 
 
 You charge that we stir up insurrections among your 
 slaves* We deny it; and what is your proof? Harper's Ferry! 
 John Brown!! John Brown was no Republican; and you 
 have failed to implicate a single Republican in his Harper's 
 Ferry enterprise* If any member of our party is guilty in 
 that matter, you know it, or you do not know it* If you do 
 know it, you are inexcusable for not designating the man 
 and proving the fact* If you do not know it,you are inexcus- 
 able 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 aided 
 or encouraged the Harper's Ferry affair, but still insist that 
 our doctrines and declarations necessarily lead to such re- 
 sults* We do not believe it* We know we hold no doctrine, 
 and make no declaration, which was not held to and made 
 by "our fathers who framed the government under which 
 we live*" You never dealt fairly by us in relation to this 
 affair* When it occurred, some important State elections 
 were near at hand, and you were in evident glee with the 
 belief that, by charging the blame upon us, you could get 
 an advantage of us in those elections* The elections came, 
 and your expectations were not quite fulfilled* Every Re- 
 publican man knew that, as to himself at least, your charge 
 was a slander, and he was not much inclined by it to cast his 
 vote in your favor* Republican doctrines and declarations 
 
 6 4 
 
are accompanied with a continual protest against any inter- 
 ference 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 gov- 
 ernment under which we live," declare our belief that slavery 
 is wrong; but the slaves do not hear us declare even this. 
 For anything we say or do, the slaves would scarcely know 
 there is a Republican party* I believe they would not, in 
 fact, generally know it but for your misrepresentations of 
 us in their hearing. In your political contests among your- 
 selves, 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 in- 
 duced 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 exten- 
 sive,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 of 
 
 65 
 
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 Hay ti was not an exception to it, but a case occurring un- 
 der peculiar circumstances* The gunpowder plot of British 
 history, though not connected with slaves, was more in point* 
 In that case, only about twenty were admitted to the secret; 
 and yet one of them, in his anxiety to save a friend, betrayed 
 the plot to that friend, and, by consequence, averted the ca- 
 lamity* Occasional poisonings from the kitchen,and open or 
 stealthy assassinations in the field, and local revolts extend- 
 ing to a score or so, will continue to occur as the natural 
 results of slavery; but no general insurrection of slaves, as I 
 think, can happen in this country for a long time* Whoever 
 much fears, or much hopes, for such an event, will be alike 
 disappointed* 
 
 In the language of Mr* Jefferson,uttered many years ago, 
 "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation 
 and deportation peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that 
 the evil will wear off 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 emancipation, I speak 
 of the slaveholding States only* The Federal Government, 
 
 66 
 
however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the ex- 
 tension 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 insur- 
 rection* 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 en- 
 thusiast 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 action can be mod- 
 ified to some extent, but human nature cannot be changed* 
 There is a judgment and a feeling against slavery in this 
 nation, which cast at least a million and a half votes* You 
 cannot destroy that judgment and feeling — that sentiment 
 — by breaking up the political organization which rallies 
 around it* You can scarcely scatter and disperse an army 
 which has been formed into order in the face of your 
 
 67 
 
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 the 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 specific 
 and well-understood allusion to an assumed constitutional 
 right of yours to take slaves into the Federal Territories, 
 and to hold them there as property. But no such right is 
 specifically written in the Constitution, That instrument 
 is literally silent about any such right. We, on the contrary, 
 deny that such a right has any existence in the Constitution, 
 even by implication. 
 
 Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy 
 the government, unless you be allowed to construe and 
 force the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute 
 between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events. 
 
 This, plainly stated, is your language. Perhaps you will 
 say the Supreme Court has decided the disputed constitu- 
 tional question in your favor. Not quite so. But waiving the 
 lawyer's distinction between dictum and decision, the court 
 
 68 
 
has decided the question for you in a sort of way. The court 
 has substantially said, it is your constitutional right to take 
 slaves into the Federal Territories, and to hold them there 
 as property* When I say the decision was made in a sort of 
 way, I mean it was made in a divided court, by a bare major- 
 ity of the judges, and they not quite agreeing with one 
 another in the reasons for making it; that it is so made as 
 that its avowed supporters disagree with one another about 
 its meaning, and that it was mainly based upon a mistaken 
 statement of fact — the statement in the opinion that "the 
 right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly 
 affirmed in the Constitution." 
 
 An inspection of the Constitution will show that the 
 right of property in a slave is not "distinctly and expressly 
 affirmed ,, in it* Bear in mind, the judges do not pledge their 
 judicial opinion that such right is impliedly affirmed in the 
 Constitution; but they pledge their veracity that it is "dis- 
 tinctly and expressly" affirmed there — "distinctly," that is^ 
 not mingled with anything else — "expressly," that is, in 
 words meaning just that, without the aid of any inference, 
 and susceptible of no other meaning* 
 
 If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that such 
 right is affirmed in the instrument by implication, it would 
 be open to others to show that neither the word "slave" nor 
 "slavery" is to be found in the Constitution, nor the word 
 "property" even, in any connection with language alluding 
 to the things slave, or slavery; and that wherever in that 
 instrument the slave is alluded to, he is called a "person"; 
 and wherever his master's legal right in relation to him is 
 
 69 
 
alluded to, it is spoken of as "service or labor which may be 
 due" — as a debt payable in service or labor. Also it would 
 be open to show, by contemporaneous history, that this 
 mode of alluding to slaves and slavery, instead of speaking 
 of them, was 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 con- 
 clusion 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 constitu- 
 tional question in our favor long ago: decided it without 
 division among themselves when making the decision; with- 
 out division among themselves about the meaning of it 
 after it was made, and, so far as any evidence is left, without 
 basing it upon any mistaken statement of facts. 
 
 Under all these circumstances, do you really feel your- 
 selves justified to break up this government unless such a 
 court decision as yours is shall be at once submitted to as a 
 conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will 
 not abide the election of a Republican President! In that 
 supposed event, you say, you will 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"! 
 
 70 
 
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 principle* 
 
 A few words now to Republicans, It is exceedingly desir- 
 able that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at 
 peace, and in harmony one with another* Let us Republic- 
 ans 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 subj ect and nature of their con- 
 troversy with us, let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy 
 them* 
 
 Will they be satisfied if the Territories be uncondition- 
 ally surrendered to them? We know they will not* In all 
 their present complaints against us, the Territories are 
 scarcely mentioned* Invasions and insurrections are the 
 rage now* Will it satisfy them if, in the future, we have 
 nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know 
 it will not* We so know, because we know we never had any- 
 thing to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet this 
 total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and 
 the denunciation* 
 
 The question recurs, What will satisfy them? Simply 
 this: we must not only let them alone, butwe must somehow 
 
 71 
 
convince them that we do let them alone* This, we know by 
 experience, is no easy task* We have been so trying to con- 
 vince them from the very beginning of our organization, 
 but with no success* In all our platforms and speeches we 
 have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; 
 but this has had no tendency to convince them* Alike un- 
 availing to convince them is the fact that they have never 
 detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them* 
 
 These natural and apparently adequate means all failing, 
 what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call 
 slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right* And this 
 must be done thoroughly — done in acts as well as in words* 
 Silence will not be tolerated — we must place ourselves avow- 
 edly with them* Senator Douglas's new sedition law must 
 be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that 
 slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in 
 pulpits, or in private* We must arrest and return their fu- 
 gitive 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 precisely in 
 this way* Most of them would probably say to us, "Let us 
 alone; do nothing to us, and say what you please about slav- 
 ery*" But we do let them alone, — have never disturbed them, 
 — so that, after all, it is what we say which dissatisfies them* 
 They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease 
 saying* 
 
 72 
 
I am also aware they have not as yet in terms demanded 
 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 voluntar- 
 ily stop nowhere short of this consummation* Holding, as 
 they do, that slavery is morally right and socially elevating, 
 they cannot cease to demand a full national recognition of 
 it as a legal right and a social blessing* 
 
 Nor can we justifiably withhold this on any ground save 
 our conviction that slavery is wrong* If slavery is right, all 
 words, acts, laws, and constitutions against it are 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 enlargement* All they ask we could readily grant, if we 
 thought slavery right; all we ask they could as readily grant, 
 if they thought it wrong* Their thinking it right and our 
 thinking it wrong is the precise fact upon which depehds 
 the whole controversy* Thinking it right, as they do, they 
 are not to blame for desiring its full recognition as being 
 right; but thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? 
 Can we cast our votes with their view, and against our own? 
 In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, 
 canwedothis? 
 
 73 
 
Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it 
 alone where it is y because that much is due to the necessity 
 arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, 
 while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the 
 national Territories, and to overrun us here in these free 
 States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand 
 by our duty fearlessly and effectively* Let us be diverted 
 by none of those sophistical contrivances 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 Dis- 
 unionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the 
 sinners, but the righteous to repentance; such as invocations 
 to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington 
 said and undo what Washington did. 
 
 Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accu- 
 sations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of 
 destruction to the government, nor of dungeons to ourselves. 
 Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith 
 let us to the end dare to do our duty as we understand it. 
 
 February 27, i860 
 
 74 
 
FAREWELL ADDRESS AT SPRINGFIELD 
 
 ILLINOIS 
 
 / |Y FRIENDS: No one, not in my sit- 
 uation, can appreciate my feeling of 
 sadness at this parting. To this place, 
 I and the kindness of these people, I owe 
 - J ^^ everything. Here I have lived a quarter 
 of a century, and have passed from a young to an old 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 assist- 
 ance, 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 com- 
 mending you, as I hope in your prayers you will commend 
 me, I bid you an affectionate farewell. 
 
 February n, 1861 
 
 75 
 
ADDRESS IN INDEPENDENCE HALL 
 PHILADELPHIA 
 
 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, politi- 
 cally, that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in 
 the Declaration of Independence* I have often pondered 
 over the dangers which were incurred by the men who as- 
 sembled here and framed and adopted that Declaration. I 
 have pondered over the toils that were endured by the 
 officers and soldiers of the army who achieved that inde- 
 pendence. I have often inquired of myself what great prin- 
 ciple or 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 
 Declaration of Independence which gave liberty not alone 
 to the people of this country, but hope to all the world, for 
 all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due 
 
 7 6 
 
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 Declaration of Independence* 
 Now, my friends, can this country be saved on that basis? 
 If it can, I will consider myself one of the happiest men in 
 the world if I can help to save it. If it cannot be saved upon 
 that 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 or 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. 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. 
 
 February 22,1861 
 
 77 
 
FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS 
 
 ELLOW-CITIZENS of the United States: 
 In compliance with a custom as old as the govern- 
 ment itself, I appear before you to address you 
 briefly, and to take in your presence the oath pre- 
 scribed by the Constitution of the United States to 
 be taken by the President "before he enters on the execu- 
 tion 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 ad- 
 ministration their property and their peace and personal 
 security are to be endangered* There has never been any 
 reasonable cause for such apprehension* Indeed, the most 
 ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and 
 been open to their inspection* It is found in nearly all the 
 published speeches of him who now addresses you* I do but 
 quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have 
 no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the in- 
 stitution 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 
 
 78 
 
full knowledge that I had made this and many similar dec- 
 larations, 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 reso- 
 lution which I now read: — 
 
 "Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights 
 of the States, and especially the right of each State to order 
 and control its own domestic institutions according to its 
 own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of 
 power on which the perfection and endurance of our polit- 
 ical fabric depend, and we denounce the lawless invasion 
 by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no mat- 
 ter 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 evi- 
 dence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, 
 peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endan- 
 gered by the now incoming administration, I add, too, that 
 all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution 
 and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all 
 the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause — 
 as cheerfully to one section as to 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 pro- 
 visions: 
 
 "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 
 
 79 
 
service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the 
 party to whom such service or labor may be due." 
 
 It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended 
 by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call 
 fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is 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 with- 
 in the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up," their 
 oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the eifort 
 in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity 
 frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that 
 unanimous oath? 
 
 There is some difference of opinion whether this clause 
 should be enforced by national or by State authority; but 
 surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave 
 is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to 
 him or to others by which authority it is done. And should 
 any one in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept 
 on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be 
 kept? 
 
 Again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the 
 safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane juris- 
 prudence 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 citi- 
 zen of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and 
 immunities of citizens in the several States"? 
 
 80 
 
I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations, 
 and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws 
 by any hypercritical rules. And while I do not choose now 
 to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be en- 
 forced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both 
 in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by 
 all those acts which stand unrepealed, than to violate any 
 of them, trusting to find impunity in having them held to 
 be unconstitutional. 
 
 It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a 
 President under our National Constitution. During that 
 period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens 
 have, in succession, administered the executive branch of 
 the government. They have conducted it through many 
 perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this 
 scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the 
 brief constitutional term of four years under great and 
 peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, here- 
 tofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted. 
 
 I hold that, in contemplation of universal law and of the 
 Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Per- 
 petuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law 
 of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no gov- 
 ernment proper ever had a provision in its organic law for 
 its own termination. Continue to execute all the express pro- 
 visions of our National Constitution, and the Union will 
 endure forever — it being impossible to destroy it except by 
 some action not provided for in the instrument itself. 
 
 Again, if the United States be not a government proper, 
 
 81 
 
but an association of States in the nature of contract mere- 
 ly, 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 per- 
 petual confirmed by the history of the Union itself The 
 Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, 
 in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774* It was matured 
 and continued by the Declaration 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 per- 
 petual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And, finally, 
 in 1787 one of the declared objects for ordaining and estab- 
 lishing theConstitutionwas"toform a more perfect Union," 
 
 But if the destruction of the Union by one or by a part 
 only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less 
 perfect than before the 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 re- 
 solves 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 revo- 
 lutionary, according to circumstances* 
 
 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 
 
 82 
 
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 myrightful masters, the American people, 
 shall withhold the requisite 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 itself 
 
 In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; 
 and there shall be none,unless it be forced upon the national 
 authority* The power confided to me will be used to hold, 
 occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to 
 the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but 
 beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will 
 be no invasion, no using of force against or among the 
 people anywhere* Where hostility to the United States, in 
 any interior locality, shall be so great and universal as to 
 prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Fed- 
 eral 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 ex- 
 ercise of these offices, 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 offices* 
 
 The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished 
 in all parts of the Union* So far as possible, the people 
 everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which 
 is most favorable to calm thought and reflection*The course 
 here indicated will be followed unless current events and 
 
 83 
 
experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, 
 and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be 
 exercised according to circumstances actually existing, and 
 with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national 
 troubles and the 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 destruction 
 of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and 
 its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we 
 do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is 
 any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have 
 no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to 
 are greater than all the real ones you fly from — will you 
 risk the commission of so fearful a mistake? 
 
 All profess to be content in the Union if all constitution- 
 al 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 written constitutional right, it might, in a moral 
 point of view, justify revolution — certainly would if such 
 
 8 4 
 
a right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital 
 rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured 
 to them by affirmations and negations, guarantees and pro- 
 hibitions, in the Constitution, that controversies never arise 
 concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed 
 with a provision specifically applicable to every question 
 which may occur in practical administration. No foresight 
 can anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length con- 
 tain, express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fu- 
 gitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State 
 authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May 
 Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Consti- 
 tution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery 
 in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. 
 
 From questions of this class spring all our constitutional 
 controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and 
 minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority 
 must, or the government must cease. There is no other al- 
 ternative; for continuing the government is acquiescence 
 on one side or the other. 
 
 If a minority in such case will secede rather than acqui- 
 esce, 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 educated to the exact temper of doing this. 
 
 85 
 
Is there such perfect identity of interests among the 
 States to compose a new Union, as to produce harmony 
 only, and prevent renewed secession? 
 
 Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of an- 
 archy* A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks 
 and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate 
 changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only 
 true sovereign of a free people* Whoever rejects it does, of 
 necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism* Unanimity is im- 
 possible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, 
 is wholly inadmissable; so that, rejecting the majority prin- 
 ciple, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left* 
 
 I do not forget the position, assumed by some, that con- 
 stitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme 
 Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding, 
 in any case, upon the parties to a suit, as to the object of that 
 suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and 
 consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments 
 of the government* And while it is obviously possible that 
 such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the 
 evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, 
 with the chance that it may be overruled and never become 
 a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could 
 the evils of a different practice* At the same time, the candid 
 citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, 
 upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be ir- 
 revocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the 
 instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties 
 in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their 
 
 86 
 
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 imperfect- 
 ly supports the law itself. The great body of the people 
 abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few 
 break over in each. This, I think, cannot be perfectly cured; 
 and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of 
 the sections than before. The foreign slave-trade, now im- 
 perfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived, without 
 restriction, in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only 
 partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by 
 the other. 
 
 Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot re- 
 move 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 be- 
 
 87 
 
tween 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 revolutionary right to dis- 
 member or overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of the fact 
 that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of 
 having the National Constitution amended. While I make 
 no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the 
 rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to 
 be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instru- 
 ment itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, 
 favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded 
 the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me 
 the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows 
 amendments to originate with the people themselves, in- 
 stead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions 
 originated by others not especially chosen for the purpose, 
 and which might not be precisely such as they would wish 
 to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amend- 
 ment to the Constitution — which amendment, however, I 
 
 88 
 
have not seen — has passed Congress, to the effect that the 
 Federal Government shall never interfere with the domes- 
 tic 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 particular amend- 
 ments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now 
 be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its 
 being made express and irrevocable* 
 
 The chief magistrate derives all his authority from the 
 people, and they have conferred none upon him to fix terms 
 for the separation of the States* The people themselves can 
 do this also if they choose; but the executive, as such, has 
 nothing to do with it* His duty is to administer the present 
 government, as it came to his hands, and to transmit ^un- 
 impaired by him, to his successor* 
 
 Why should there not be a patient confidence in the 
 ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal 
 hope in the world? In our present differences is either party 
 without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler 
 of Nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your 
 side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and 
 that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great 
 tribunal 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 wisdom, 
 provided for the return of that little to their own hands at 
 very short intervals* While the people retain their virtue 
 and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wicked- 
 
 8 9 
 
ness or folly, can very seriously injure the government in 
 the short space of four years. 
 
 My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon 
 this whole subject* Nothing valuable can be lost by taking 
 time* If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste 
 to a step which you would never take deliberately, that ob- 
 ject will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object 
 can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied, 
 still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the 
 sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; 
 while the new administration will have no immediate pow- 
 er, 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 reliance on 
 Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still 
 competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty. 
 
 In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and 
 not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The gov- 
 ernment will not assail you. You can have no conflict with- 
 out being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath 
 registered in heaven to destroy the government, while I 
 shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and 
 defend it." 
 
 I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We 
 must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, 
 it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords 
 of memory, stretching from every battle-field and patriot 
 grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this 
 
 9° 
 
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. 
 
 March 4,1861 
 
 9 1 
 
ADDRESS AT THE DEDICATION OF THE 
 GETTYSBURG NATIONAL CEMETERY 
 
 OURS CORE and seven years ago our fathers 
 brought forth on this continent a new nation, con- 
 ceived 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 dedicated, can long endure* We 
 are met on a great battle-field of that war* We have come 
 to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for 
 those who here gave their lives that that nation might live* 
 It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this* 
 But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate — we cannot con- 
 secrate — we cannot hallow — this ground* The brave men, 
 living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far 
 above our poor power to add or detract* The world will little 
 note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never 
 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 devo- 
 tion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure 
 
 92 
 
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, 
 
 November 19, 1863 
 
 93 
 
SECOND INAUGURAL ADDRESS 
 
 T THIS second appearing to take the oath of the 
 presidential office, there is less occasion for an ex- 
 tended 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 expiration of four years, during which public decla- 
 rations have been constantly called forth on every point and 
 phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention 
 and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new 
 could be presented* The progress of our arms, upon which 
 all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to 
 myself; and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encour- 
 aging 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 alto- 
 gether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents 
 were in the city seeking to destroy it without war — seeking 
 to dissolve the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation* 
 
 94 
 
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 constituted a peculiar 
 and powerful interest* All knew that this interest was, some- 
 how, 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 
 enlargement 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 be- 
 fore, the conflict itself should cease* Each looked for an 
 easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astound- 
 ing* Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; 
 and each invokes his aid against the other* It may seem 
 strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assist- 
 ance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's 
 faces; but let us judge not, that we be not judged* The 
 prayers of both could not be answered — that of neither has 
 been answered fully* 
 
 The Almighty has his own purposes* "Woe unto the 
 world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses 
 come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh*" 
 If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those 
 offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, 
 
 95 
 
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 always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope— fervently 
 do we pray — that this mighty scourge of war may speedily 
 pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the 
 wealth piled by the bondman's two hundred and fifty years 
 of unrequited toil shall be 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 our- 
 selves, and with all nations, 
 
 March 4, 1865 
 
 96 
 
LAST PUBLIC ADDRESS 
 
 MEET this evening not in sorrow, but in 
 gladness of heart.The evacuation of Petersburg 
 and Richmond, and the surrender of the princi- 
 pal insurgent army, give hope of a righteous and 
 speedy peace, whose joyous expression cannot be 
 restrained* In the midst of this, however, He from whom 
 all blessings flow must not be forgotten* A call for a national 
 thanksgiving is being prepared, and will be duly promul- 
 gated. Nor must those whose harder part gives us the cause 
 of rejoicing be overlooked. Their honors must not be par- 
 celed 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 skilful 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 na- 
 tional 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. Un- 
 like a case of war between independent nations, there is no 
 
 97 
 
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 elements* Nor is it a small additional embarrass- 
 ment that we, the loyal people, differ among ourselves as to 
 the mode, manner, and measureof reconstruction. As a gen- 
 eral rule, I abstain from reading the reports of attacks upon 
 myself, wishing not to be provoked by that to which I can- 
 not 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 sus- 
 tain 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 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 stat- 
 ed 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 from 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 Eman- 
 cipation 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 
 
 98 
 
admission of members to Congress* But even he approved 
 every part and parcel of the plan which has since been em- 
 ployed or touched by the action of Louisiana, 
 
 The new constitution of Louisiana, declaring emancipa- 
 tion for the whole State, practically applies the proclamation 
 to the part previously excepted* It does not adopt appren- 
 ticeship for freed people, and it is silent, as it could not well 
 be otherwise, about the admission of members to Congress* 
 So that, as it applies to Louisiana, every member of the 
 Cabinet fully approved the plan* The message went to Con- 
 gress, 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 Lou- 
 isiana had begun to move in accordance with it* From about 
 July, 1862, 1 had corresponded with different persons sup- 
 posed to be interested [in] seeking a reconstruction of a 
 State government for Louisiana* When the message of 1863, 
 with the plan before mentioned, reached New Orleans, 
 General Banks wrote me that he was confident that the 
 people, with his military cooperation, 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 whenever I shall be 
 convinced that keeping it is adverse to the public interest; 
 but I have not yet been so convinced* I have been shown a 
 
 99 
 
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 per- 
 haps 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 question has not 
 been, nor yet is, a practically material one, and that any dis- 
 cussion 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 be- 
 come, that question is bad as the basis of a controversy, and 
 good for nothing at all — a merely pernicious abstraction. 
 We all agree 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 re- 
 gard 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 consider- 
 ing 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 
 
 IOO 
 
of constituency, 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 unsatisfactory 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 govern- 
 ment, 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 sustain- 
 ing or by discarding her new State government? Some 
 twelve thousand voters in the heretofore slave State of Lou- 
 isiana have sworn allegiance to the Union, assumed to be 
 the rightful political power of the State, held elections, or- 
 ganized a State government, adopted a free-State constitu- 
 tion, 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 na- 
 tion wants — and they ask the nation's recognition and its 
 assistance to make good their committal, 
 
 o 
 
 Now, if we reject and spurn them, we do our utmost to 
 disorganize and disperse them. We, in effect, say to the 
 
 IOI 
 
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 gath- 
 ering the spilled and scattered contents in some vague and 
 undefined when, where, and how* If this course, discourag- 
 ing 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 government of 
 Louisiana, the converse of all this is made true* We encour- 
 age 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, and ripen it to a com- 
 plete success*The colored man, too, in seeing all united for 
 him, is inspired with vigilance, 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? Con- 
 cede 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, 
 
 102 
 
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 gov- 
 ernment? 
 
 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 unprecedented is 
 the whole case that no exclusive and inflexible plan can 
 safely be prescribed as to details and collaterals* Such exclu- 
 sive and inflexible plan would surely become a new entan- 
 glement* Important principles may and must be inflexible* 
 In the present situation, 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. 
 
 April II, 1865 
 
 103 
 
This edition consists of 950 copies, hand-set in 
 Bruce Rogers' Centaur type, and printed on an 
 all rag paper at the Walpole Printing Office, 
 NewRochelle,N*Y*The frontispiece is drawn 
 by John Rudolph after the bust by St.Gaudens* 
 This copy is number