IN the winter of 1858-9, Mr. Lincoln, having no political business on
hand, appeared before the public in the character of lecturer, having
prepared himself with much care. His lecture was, or might have been,
styled, "All Creation is a mine, and every man a miner." He began with
Adam and Eve, and the invention of the "fig-leaf apron," of which he
gave a humorous description, and which he said was a "joint operation."
The invention of letters, writing, printing, of the application of
steam, of electricity, he classed under the comprehensive head of
"inventions and discoveries," along with the discovery of America, the
enactment of patent-laws, and the "invention of negroes, or the present
mode of using them." Part of the lecture was humorous; a very small part
of it actually witty; and the rest of it so commonplace that it was a
genuine mortification to his friends. He delivered it at two or three
points, and then declined all further invitations. To one of these he
replied, in March, as follows: "Your note, inviting me to deliver a
lecture in Gales-burgh, is received. I regret to say I cannot do so now:
I must stick to the courts a while. I read a sort of a lecture to three
different audiences during the last month and this; but I did so under
circumstances which made it a waste of no time whatever."
From the Douglas discussion many of the leaders of the Republican party
believed, and the reader will agree had some foundation for the belief,
that Mr. Lincoln was one of the greatest and best men in the party. It
was natural, therefore, that many eyes should be turned towards him
for the coming Presidential nomination. He had all the requisites of an
available candidate: he had not been sufficiently prominent in national
politics to excite the jealousies of powerful rivals; he was true,
manly, able; he was pre-eminently a man of the people; he had sprung
from a low family in the lowest class of society; he had been a
rail-splitter, a flat-boatman, a grocery-keeper,--every thing that could
commend him to the "popular heart." His manners, his dress, his stories,
and his popular name and style of "Honest Old Abe," pointed to him as a
man beside whose "running qualities" those of Taylor and Harrison were
of slight comparison. That he knew all this, and thought of it a great
deal, no one can doubt; and in the late campaign he had most adroitly
opened the way for the realization of his hopes. But he knew very well
that a becoming modesty in a "new man" was about as needful as any thing
else. Accordingly, when a Mr. Pickett wrote him on the subject in March,
1859, he replied as follows: "Yours of the 2d instant, inviting me to
deliver my lecture on 'Inventions' in Rock Island, is at hand, and
I regret to be unable from press of business to comply therewith. In
regard to the other matter you speak of, I beg that you will not give it
a further mention. I do not think I am fit for the Presidency."
But in April the project began to be agitated in his own town. On
the 27th of that month, he was in the office of "The Central Illinois
Gazette," when the editor suggested his name. Mr. Lincoln, "with
characteristic modesty, declined." But the editor estimated his "No"
at its proper value; and he "was brought out in the next issue, May
4." Thence the movement spread rapidly and strongly. Many Republicans
welcomed it, and, appreciating the pre-eminent fitness of the
nomination, saw in it the assurance of certain victory.
The West was rapidly filling with Germans and other inhabitants of
foreign birth. Dr. Canisius, a German, foreseeing Mr. Lincoln's
strength in the near future, wrote to inquire what he thought about the
restrictions upon naturalization recently adopted in Massachusetts, and
whether he favored the fusion of all the opposition elements in the next
canvass. He replied, that, as to the restrictions, he was wholly and
unalterably opposed to them; and as to fusion, he was ready for it
upon "Republican grounds," but upon no other. He would not lower "the
Republican standard even by a hair's breadth." The letter undoubtedly
had a good effect, and brought him valuable support from the foreign
population.
To a gentleman who desired his views about the tariff question, he
replied cautiously and discreetly as follows:--
Dr. Edward Wallace.
My dear Sir,--I am here just now attending court. Yesterday, before
I left Springfield, your brother, Dr. William S. Wallace, showed me a
letter of yours, in which you kindly mention my name, inquire for my
tariff-views, and suggest the propriety of my writing a letter upon the
subject. I was an old Henry-Clay Tariff Whig. In old times I made more
speeches on that subject than on any other.
I have not since changed my views. I believe yet, if we could have a
moderate, carefully adjusted, protective tariff, so far acquiesced in as
not to be a perpetual subject of political strife, squabbles, changes,
and uncertain, ties, it would be better for us. Still, it is my opinion,
that, just now, the revival of that question will not _advance the cause
itself, or the man who revives it._
I have not thought much on the subject recently; but my general
impression is, that the necessity for a protective tariff will ere long
force its old opponents to take it up; and then its old friends can join
in and establish it on a more firm and durable basis. We, the old Whigs,
have been entirely beaten out on the tariff question; and we shall not
be able to re-establish the policy until the absence of it shall have
demonstrated the necessity for it in the minds of men heretofore opposed
to it. With this view, I should prefer to not now write a public letter
upon the subject.
I therefore wish this to be considered confidential.
I shall be very glad to receive a letter from you.
In September Mr. Lincoln made a few masterly speeches in Ohio, where Mr.
Douglas had preceded him on his new hobby of "squatter sovereignty," or
"unfriendly legislation."
Clinton, Oct. 11,1859.
Yours truly,
A. Lincoln.
He spoke at Columbus, Cincinnati, and several other points, each
time devoting the greater part of his address to Mr. Douglas and his
theories, as if the habit of combating that illustrious chieftain was
hard to break.
In December he went to Kansas, speaking at Elwood, Don-aphan, Troy,
Atchison, and twice at Leavenworth. Wherever he went, he was met by
vast assemblages of people. His speeches were principally repetitions
of those previously made in Illinois; but they were very fresh and
captivating to his new audiences. These journeys, which turned out to be
continuous ovations, spread his name and fame far beyond the limits to
which they had heretofore been restricted.
During the winter of 1859-60, he saw that his reputation had reached
such a height, that he might honorably compete with such renowned men as
Seward, Chase, and Bates, for the Presidential nomination. Mr. Jackson
Grimshaw of Quincy urged him very strongly on the point. At length Mr.
Lincoln consented to a conference with Grimshaw and some of his more
prominent friends. It took place in a committee-room in the State
House. Mr. Bushnell, Mr. Hatch (the Secretary of State), Mr. Judd
(Chairman of the Republican State Central Committee), Mr. Peck, and
Mr. Grimshaw were present,--all of them "intimate friends." They were
unanimous in opinion as to the expediency and propriety of making him
a candidate. But "Mr. Lincoln, with his characteristic modesty, doubted
whether he could get the nomination, even if he wished it, and asked
until the next morning to answer us.... The next day he authorized us
to consider him, and work for him, if we pleased, as a candidate for the
Presidency."
It was in October, 1859, that Mr. Lincoln received an invitation to
speak in New York. It enchanted him: no event of his life had given
him more heartfelt pleasure. He went straight to his office, and, Mr.
Herndon says, "looked pleased, not to say _tickled_. He said to me,
'Billy, I am invited to deliver a lecture in New York. Shall I go?'--'By
all means,' I replied; 'and it is a good opening too.'--'If you were in
my fix, what subject would you choose?' said Lincoln. 'Why, a political
one: that's your forte,' I answered." Mr. Herndon remembered his
partner's previous "failure,--utter failure," as a lecturer, and, on
this occasion, dreaded excessively his choice of a subject. "In the
absence of a friend's advice, Lincoln would as soon take the Beautiful
for a subject as any thing else, when he had absolutely no sense of it."
He wrote in response to the invitation, that he would avail himself
of it the coming February, provided he might be permitted to make a
political speech, in case he found it inconvenient to get up one of
another kind. He had purposely set the day far ahead, that he might
thoroughly prepare himself; and it may safely be said, that no effort of
his life cost him so much labor as this one. Some of the party managers
who were afterwards put to work to verify its statements, and get it out
as a campaign document, are alleged to have been three weeks in finding
the historical records consulted by him.
On the 25th of February, 1860, he arrived in New York. It was Saturday,
and he spent the whole day in revising and retouching his speech. The
next day he heard Beecher preach, and on Monday wandered about the city
to see the sights. When the committee under whose auspices he was to
speak waited upon him, they found him dressed in a sleek and shining
suit of new black, covered with very apparent creases and wrinkles,
acquired by being packed too closely and too long in his little valise.
He felt uneasy in his new clothes and a strange place. His confusion
was increased when the reporters called to get the printed slips of his
speech in advance of its delivery. Mr. Lincoln knew nothing of such a
custom among the orators, and had no slips. He was, in fact, not quite
sure that the press would desire to publish his speech. When he reached
the Cooper Institute, and was ushered into the vast hall, he was
surprised to see the most cultivated men of the city awaiting him on
the stand, and an immense audience assembled to hear him. Mr. Bryant
introduced him as "an eminent citizen of the West, hitherto known to you
only by reputation." Mr. Lincoln then began, in low, monotonous tones,
which gradually became louder and clearer, the following speech:--
Mr. President and Fellow-Citizens of New York,--The facts with which I
shall deal this evening are mainly old and familiar; nor is there any
thing new in the general use I shall make of them. If there shall be
any novelty, it will be in the mode of presenting the facts, and the
inferences and observations following that presentation.
In his speech last autumn, at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in "The
New-York Times," Senator Douglas said,--"Our fathers, when they framed
the government under which we live, understood this question just as
well, and even better than we do now."
I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. I so
adopt it, because it furnishes a precise and agreed starting-point for
the discussion between Republicans and that wing of Democracy headed
by Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry, "What was the
understanding those fathers had of the questions 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 into operation), and twelve
subsequently framed amendments, 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 instrument may be fairly called
our fathers who framed that part of the present Government. It is almost
exactly true to say they framed it; and it is altogether true to say
they fairly represented the opinion and sentiment of the whole nation at
that time. Their names, 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
any thing in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government control as
to slavery in our Federal Territories?
Upon this, Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republicans the negative.
This affirmative 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 understanding.
In 1784,--three years before the Constitution,--the United States then
owning the North-western Territory, and no other, the Congress of the
Confederation had before them the question of prohibiting slavery in
that Territory; and four of the "thirty-nine" who afterward framed
the Constitution were in that Congress, and voted on that question. Of
these, Roger Sherman, Thomas Mifflin, and Hugh Williamson voted for
the prohibition; thus showing, that, in their understanding, no line
dividing local from Federal authority, nor any thing else, properly
forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in Federal
territory. The other of the four, James McHenry, voted against the
prohibition, showing that, for some cause, he thought it improper to
vote for it.
In 1787--still before the Constitution, but while the Convention was in
session framing it, and while the North-western Territory still was
the only Territory owned by the United States--the same question of
prohibiting slavery in the Territory again came before the Congress of
the Confederation; and three more of the "thirty-nine" who afterward
signed the Constitution were in that Congress, and voted on the
question. They were William Blount, William Few, and Abraham Baldwin;
and they all voted for the prohibition, thus showing that, in their
understanding, no line dividing local from Federal authority, nor any
thing else, properly forbids the Federal Government to control as to
slavery in Federal territory. This time the prohibition became a law,
being part of what is now well known as the Ordinance of '87.
The question of Federal control of slavery in the Territories seems not
to have been directly before the convention which framed the original
Constitution; and hence it is not recorded that the "thirty-nine," or
any of them, while engaged on that instrument, expressed any opinion on
that precise question.
In 1789, by the First Congress which sat under the Constitution, an act
was passed to enforce the Ordinance of '87, including the prohibition
of slavery in the North-western Territory. The bill for this act was
reported by one of the "thirty-nine,"--Thomas Fitzsimmons, then a member
of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania. It went through
all its stages without a word of opposition, and finally passed both
branches without yeas and nays, which is equivalent to a unanimous
passage. In this Congress there were sixteen of the "thirty-nine"
fathers who framed the original Constitution. They were John Langdon,
Nicholas Gilman, William S. Johnson, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris,
Thomas Fitzsimmons, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, William
Patterson, George Clymer, Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler,
Daniel Carrol, James Madison.
This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from
Federal authority, nor any thing in the Constitution, 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, approved and signed the
bill, thus completing its validity as a law, and thus showing, that, in
his understanding, no line dividing local from Federal authority, nor
any thing in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control
as to slavery in Federal territory.
No great while after the adoption of the original Constitution, North
Carolina ceded to the Federal Government the country now constituting
the State of Tennessee; and a few years later Georgia ceded that which
now constitutes the States of Mississippi and Alabama. In both deeds of
cession it was made a 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 prohibit slavery within them. But they did interfere with it,
take control of it, even there, to a certain extent. In 1798, Congress
organized the Territory of Mississippi. In the act of organization they
prohibited the bringing of slaves into the Territory, from any place
without the United States, by fine, and giving freedom to slaves so
brought. This act passed both branches of Congress without yeas and
nays. In that Congress were three of the "thirty-nine" who framed the
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 any thing in the
Constitution, 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 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
constitutes the State of Louisiana. New Orleans, lying within that part,
was an old and comparatively large city. There were other considerable
towns and settlements, and slavery was extensively and thoroughly
intermingled with the 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,--
First, That no slave should be imported into the Territory from foreign
parts.
Second, That no slave should be carried into it who had been imported
into the United States since the first day of May, 1798.
Third, That no slave should be carried into it, except by the owner, and
for his own use as a settler; the penalty in all the cases being a fine
upon the violator of the law, and freedom to the slave.
This act also was passed without yeas and nays. In the Congress which
passed it there were two of the "thirty-nine:" they were Abraham
Baldwin and Jonathan Dayton. As stated in the case of Mississippi, it is
probable they both voted for it. They would not have allowed it to pass
without recording their opposition to it, if, in their understanding, it
violated either the line proper dividing local from Federal authority or
any provision of the Constitution.
In 1819-20 came and passed the Missouri question. Many votes were taken
by yeas and nays, in both branches of Congress, upon the various phases
of the general question. Two of the "thirty-nine"--Rufus 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 any thing in the
Constitution, was violated by Congress prohibiting slavery in Federal
territory; while Mr. Pinckney, by his votes, showed, that, in his
understanding, there was some sufficient reason for opposing such
prohibition in that case.
The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the "thirty-nine," or of
any of them, upon the direct issue, which I have been able to discover.
To enumerate the persons who thus acted as being four in 1784, three
in 1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 1798, two in 1804, and two in
1819-20,--there would be thirty-one of them. But this would be counting
John Lang-don, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus King, and George Read
each twice, and Abraham Baldwin four times. The true number of those
of the "thirty-nine" whom I have shown to have acted upon the question,
which, by the text, they understood better than we, is twenty-three,
leaving sixteen not shown to have acted upon it in any way.
Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our "thirty-nine" fathers, who
framed the government under which we live, who have, upon their official
responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the very question
which the text affirms they "understood just as well, and even better
than we do now;" and twenty-one of them--a clear majority of the
"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 any thing in the
Constitution they had made themselves, and sworn to support, forbade the
Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories.
Thus the twenty-one acted; and, as actions speak louder than words, so
actions under such responsibility speak still louder.
Two of the twenty-three voted against congressional prohibition of
slavery in the Federal Territories in the instances in which they acted
upon the question; but for what reasons they so voted is not known. They
may have done so because they thought a proper division of local from
Federal authority, or some 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 understanding, any proper division of local
from Federal authority, or any thing in the Constitution, forbade the
Federal Government to control as to slavery in Federal territory.
The remaining sixteen of the "thirty-nine," so far as I have discovered,
have left no record of their understanding upon the direct question of
Federal control of slavery in the Federal 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 Constitution; and, for the same reason, I have also
omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any of
the "thirty-nine" even, on any other phase of the general question of
slavery. If we should look into their acts and declarations on those
other phases, as the 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 majority of
the whole--certainly understood that no proper division of local from
Federal authority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal
Government to control slavery in the Federal Territories; while all the
rest probably had the same understanding. Such, unquestionably, was the
understanding of our fathers who framed the original Constitution; and
the text affirms that they understood the question better than we.
But, so far, I have been considering the 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 government under which we live
consists of that original, and twelve amendatory articles framed and
adopted since. Those who now insist that Federal control of slavery in
Federal Territories violates the Constitution point us to the provisions
which they suppose it thus violates; and, as I understand, they all fix
upon provisions in these amendatory articles, and not in the original
instrument. The Supreme Court, in the Dred-Scott case, plant themselves
upon the fifth amendment, which provides that "no person shall be
deprived of property without due process of law;" while Senator Douglas
and his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the tenth amendment,
providing that "the powers not granted by the Constitution are reserved
to the States respectively and to the people."
Now, it so happens that these amendments were framed by the first
Congress which sat under the Constitution,--the identical Congress which
passed the act already mentioned, 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 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 constitutional
amendments were introduced before, and passed after, the act enforcing
the Ordinance of '87; so that, during the whole pendency of the act to
enforce the Ordinance, the constitutional amendments were also pending.
That Congress, consisting in all of seventy-six members, including
sixteen of the framers of the original Constitution, as 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 that Congress deliberately framed, and earned to
maturity at the same time, are absolutely 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 were really
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 the Congress which
framed the amendments thereto, taken together, do certainly include
those who may be 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
understanding, any proper division of local from Federal authority, or
any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control
as to slavery in the Federal Territories. I go a step farther. I defy
any one to show that any living man in the whole world ever did, prior
to the beginning of the present century (and I might almost say prior to
the beginning of the last half of the present century), declare,
that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from Federal
authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal
Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories. To
those who now so declare, I give, not only "our fathers, who framed
the government under which we live," but with them all other living men
within the century in which it was framed, among whom to search, and
they shall not be able to find the evidence of a single man agreeing
with them.
Now, and here, let me guard a little against being misunderstood. I
do not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our
fathers did. To do so would be to discard all the lights of current
experience,--to reject all progress,--all improvement. What I do say is,
that, if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in
any case, we should do so upon evidence so conclusive, and argument so
clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and weighed,
cannot stand; and most surely not in a case whereof we ourselves 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 responsibility of declaring, that, in his opinion,
he understands their principles better than they did themselves; and
especially should he not shirk that responsibility by asserting that
they "understood the question just as well, and even better than we do
now."
But enough. Let all who believe that "our fathers, who framed the
government under which we live, understood this question just as well,
and even better than we do now," speak as they spoke, and act as they
acted upon it. This is all Republicans ask, all Republicans desire,
in relation to slavery. As those fathers marked it, so let it be again
marked, as an evil not to be extended, but to be tolerated and protected
only because of and so far as its actual presence among us makes that
toleration and protection a necessity. Let all the guaranties those
fathers gave it be, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly maintained. For
this Republicans contend, and with this, so far as I know or believe,
they will be content.
And now, if they would listen,--as I suppose they will not,--I would
address a few words to the Southern people.
I would say to them, You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just
people; and I consider, that, in the general qualities of reason and
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 contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional
condemnation of "Black Republicanism" as the first thing to be attended
to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable
prerequisite--license, so to speak--among you to be admitted or
permitted to speak at all.
Now can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether
this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves?
Bring forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long
enough to hear us deny or justify.
You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the
burden of proof is upon you. You produce your proof; and what is it?
Why, that our party has no existence in your 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 us 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 it 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, 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 Farewell Address. Less than eight
years before Washington gave that warning, he had, as President of the
United States, approved and signed an act of Congress enforcing the
prohibition of slavery in the North-western Territory, which act
embodied the policy of the Government upon that subject up to and at the
very moment he penned that warning; and about one year after he penned
it he wrote Lafayette that he considered that prohibition a wise
measure, expressing, in the same connection, his hope that we should
some time have a confederacy of Free States.
Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen upon
this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, or
in our hands against you? Could Washington himself speak, would he cast
the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon
you, who repudiate it? We respect that warning of Washington; and we
commend it to you, together with his example pointing to the right
application of it.
But you say you are conservative,--eminently conservative; while we
are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is
conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried against the new
and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old-policy on the
point in controversy which was adopted by our fathers who framed the
government under which we live; while you, with one accord, reject
and scout and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting
something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that
substitute shall be. You have considerable variety of new propositions
and plans; but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the
old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign
slave-trade; some for a Congressional Slave-code for the Territories;
some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit slavery within
their limits; some for maintaining slavery in the Territories through
the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that, "if one man
would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called
"popular sovereignty;" but never a man among you in favor of Federal
prohibition of slavery in Federal Territories, according to the practice
of our fathers, who framed the government under which we live. Not one
of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the
century within which our Government originated. Consider, then,
whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge
of destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable
foundations.
Again, you say we have made the slavery question more prominent than
it formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more prominent, but we
deny that we made it so. It was not we, but you, who discarded the old
policy of the fathers. We resisted, and still resist, your innovation;
and thence comes the greater prominence of the question. Would you have
that question reduced to its former proportions? Go back to that old
policy. What has been will be again, under the same conditions. If you
would have the peace of the old times, re-adopt the precepts and policy
of the old times.
You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it.
And what is your proof? Harper's Ferry! John Brown! John Brown was no
Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his
Harper's Ferry enterprise. If any member of our party is guilty in that
matter, you know it, or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are
inexcusable to not designate the man, and prove the fact. If you do not
know it, you are inexcusable to assert it, and especially to persist
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 results. We do not believe it. We
know we hold to no doctrine, and make no declarations, which were not
held to and made by our fathers, who framed the government under which
we live. You never deal fairly by us in relation to this affair. When it
occurred, some important State elections were near at hand; and you were
in evident glee with the belief, that, by charging the blame upon us,
you could get an advantage of us in those elections. The elections came;
and your expectations were not quite fulfilled. Every Republican man
knew, that, as to himself at least, your charge was a slander, and he
was not much inclined by it to cast his vote in your favor. Republican
doctrines and declarations are accompanied with a continual protest
against any interference whatever with your slaves, or with you about
your slaves. Surely this does not encourage them to revolt. True, we
do, in common with our fathers who framed the government under which we
live, declare our belief that slavery is wrong; but the slaves do not
hear us declare even this. For any thing 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 contest among yourselves, each faction
charges the other with sympathy with Black Republicanism; and then,
to give point to the charge, defines Black Republicanism to simply be
insurrection, blood, and thunder among the slaves.
Slave insurrections are no more common now than they were before
the Republican party was organized. What induced the Southampton
Insurrection, twenty-eight years ago, in which, at least, three times as
many lives were lost as at Harper's Ferry? You can scarcely stretch
your very elastic fancy to the conclusion that Southampton was got up
by Black Republicanism. In the present state of things in the United
States, I do not think a general, or even a very extensive slave
insurrection, is possible. The indispensable concert of action cannot
be attained. The slaves have no means of rapid communication; nor can
incendiary free men, 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 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 Hayti was not an exception to it, but a case occurring
under peculiar circumstances. The gunpowder plot of British history,
though not connected with the slaves, was more in point. In that case,
only about twenty were admitted to the secret; and yet one of them, in
his anxiety to save a friend, betrayed the plot to that friend, and,
by consequence, averted the calamity. Occasional poisoning from the
kitchen, and open or stealthy assassinations in the field, and local
revolts extending to a score or so, will continue to occur as the
natural results of slavery; but no general insurrection of slaves, as I
think, can happen in this country for a long time. Whoever much fears,
or much hopes, for such an event will be alike disappointed.
In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is still
in our power to direct the process of emancipation and 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, however, as we insist, has the power of
restraining the extension of the institution,--the power to insure that
a slave insurrection shall never occur on any American soil which is now
free from slavery.
John Brown's effort was peculiar. It was not a slave insurrection. It
was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves, in which
the slaves refused to participate. In fact, it was so absurd that
the slaves, with all their ignorance, saw plainly enough it could not
succeed. 'That affair, in its philosophy, corresponds with the many
attempts, related in history, at the assassination of kings and
emperors. An enthusiast broods over the oppression of a people till he
fancies himself commissioned by Heaven to liberate them. He ventures the
attempt, which ends in little else than in 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 modified to some extent; but human nature cannot
be changed. There is a judgment and a feeling against slavery in this
nation, which cast at least a million and a half of votes. You cannot
destroy that judgment and feeling, that 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 heaviest fire; but, if you could, how much would you gain by
forcing the sentiment which created it out of the peaceful channel of
the ballot-box, into some other channel? What would that other channel
probably be? Would the number of John Browns be lessened or enlarged by
the operation?
But you will break up the Union rather than submit to a denial of your
constitutional rights.
That has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would be palliated, if not
fully justified, were we proposing by the mere force of numbers to
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-under-stood allusion to an assumed constitutional right of yours
to take slaves into the Federal Territories, and 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 enforce 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 to us. Perhaps you will say the
Supreme Court has decided the disputed constitutional question in your
favor. Not quite so. But waiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum
and decision, the courts have decided the question for you in a sort of
way. The courts have 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 majority of the judges, and they not quite
agreeing with one another in the reasons for making it; that it is so
made as that its avowed supporters 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 distinctly and expressly affirmed there,--"distinctly," that
is, not mingled with any thing else; "expressly," that is, in words
meaning just that, without the aid of any inference, and susceptible of
no other meaning.
If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that such right is
affirmed in the instrument by implication, it would be open to others to
show that neither the word "slave" nor "slavery" is to be found in
the Constitution, nor the word "property" even, in any connection with
language alluding to the things slave or slavery, and that, wherever in
that instrument the slave is alluded to, he is called a "person;" and
wherever his master's legal right in relation to him is alluded to, it
is spoken of as "service or labor 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 conclusion based upon it?
And then it is to be remembered that "our fathers, who framed
the government under which we live,"--the men who made the
Constitution,--decided this same constitutional question in our favor
long ago,--decided it without a division among themselves, when making
the decision; without division among themselves about the meaning of it
after it was made, and, so far as any evidence is left, without basing
it upon any mistaken statement of facts.
Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified
to break up this 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!"
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 threat of death to me to extort my money, and 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 desirable that all
parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony, one
with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though
much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill-temper. Even
though the Southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us
calmly consider their demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate
view of our duty, we possibly can. Judging by all they say and do,
and by the subject and nature of their controversy with us, let us
determine, if we can, what will satisfy them.
Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally 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, but we must, somehow, convince them that we do let
them alone. This we know by experience is no easy task. We have been so
trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but
with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly
protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to
convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them is the fact that they
have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.
These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will
convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery _wrong_, and
join them in calling it _right_. And this must be done thoroughly,--done
in _acts_ as well as in _words_. Silence will not be tolerated: we must
place ourselves avowedly with them. 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 fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We
must pull down our Free-State Constitutions. The whole atmosphere must
be disinfected from all taint of opposition to 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 slavery." But we do let them alone,
have never disturbed them; so that, after all, it is what we say which
dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing until we
cease saying.
I am also aware they have not as yet, in terms, demanded the overthrow
of our Free-State constitutions. Yet those constitutions declare the
wrong of slavery with more solemn emphasis than do all other sayings
against it; and when all these other sayings shall have been silenced,
the overthrow of these constitutions will be demanded, and nothing be
left to resist the demand. It is nothing to the contrary, that they do
not demand the whole of this just now. Demanding what they do, and for
the reason they do, they can voluntarily stop nowhere short of this
consummation. Holding, as they do, that slavery is morally right,
and socially 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 depends 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, can we do this?
Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where
it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual
presence in the nation; 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 accusations against
us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government,
nor of dungeons to ourselves. Let us have faith that right makes
might; and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we
understand it.
The next morning "The Tribune" presented a report of the speech, but,
in doing so, said, "the tones, the gestures, the kindling eye, and the
mirth-provoking look defy the reporter's skill.... No man ever before
made such an impression on his first appeal to a New York audience."
"The Evening Post" said, "We have made room for Mr. Lincoln's speech,
notwithstanding the pressure of other matters; and our readers will see
that it was well worthy of the deep attention with which it was heard."
For the publication of such arguments the editor was "tempted to wish"
that his columns "were indefinitely elastic." And these are but fair
evidences of the general tone of the press.
Mr. Lincoln was much annoyed, after his return home, by the allegation
that he had sold a "political speech," and had been generally governed
by mercenary motives in his Eastern trip. Being asked to explain it, he
answered as follows:--
Springfield, April 6, 1860.
C. F. McNeill, Esq.
Dear Sir,--Reaching home yesterday, I found yours of the 23d March,
enclosing a slip from "The Middleport Press." It is not true that I ever
charged any thing for a political speech in my life; but this much is
true. Last October I was requested by letter to deliver some sort of
speech in Mr. Beecher's church in Brooklyn,--$200 being offered in the
first letter. I wrote that I could do it in February, provided they
would take a political speech if I could find time to get up no other.
They agreed; and subsequently I informed them the speech would have to
be a political one. When I reached New York, I, for the first, learned
that the place was changed to "Cooper Institute." I made the speech, and
left for New Hampshire, where I have a son at school, neither asking for
pay nor having any offered me. Three days after, a check for $200 was
sent to me at N.H.; and I took it, _and did not know it was wrong_. My
understanding now is, though I knew nothing of it at the time, that they
did charge for admittance at the Cooper Institute, and that they took in
more than twice $200.
I have made this explanation to you as a friend; but I wish no
explanation made to our enemies. What they want is a squabble and a
fuss: and that they can have if we explain; and they cannot have it if
we don't.
When I returned through New York from New England, I was told by the
gentlemen who sent me the check, that a drunken vagabond in the club,
having learned something about the $200, made the exhibition out of
which "The Herald" manufactured the article quoted by "The Press" of
your town.
My judgment is, and therefore my request is, that you give no denial,
and no explanations.
Thanking you for your kind interest in the matter, I remain
Yours truly,
A. Lincoln.
From New York Mr. Lincoln travelled into New England, to visit his
son Robert, who was a student at Harvard; but he was overwhelmed with
invitations to address Republican meetings. In Connecticut he spoke at
Hartford, Norwich, New Haven, Meriden, and Bridgeport; in Rhode Island,
at Woonsocket; in New Hampshire, at Concord and Manchester. Everywhere
the people poured out in multitudes, and the press lavished encomiums.
Upon his speech at Manchester, "The Mirror," a neutral paper, passed the
following criticisms of his style of oratory,--criticisms familiar
enough to the people of his own State: "He spoke an hour and a half with
great fairness, great apparent candor, and with wonderful interest.
He did not abuse the South, the administration, or the Democrats,
or indulge in any personalities, with the exception of a few hits at
Douglas's notions. He is far from prepossessing in personal appearance,
and his voice is disagreeable; and yet he wins your attention and
good-will from the start.... He indulges in no flowers of rhetoric, no
eloquent passages. He is not a wit, a humorist, or a clown; yet so great
a vein of pleasantry and good-nature pervades what he says, gilding over
a deep current of practical argument, he keeps his hearers in a smiling
mood, with their mouths open ready to swallow all he says. His sense of
the ludicrous is very keen; and an exhibition of that is the clincher
of all his arguments,--not the ludicrous acts of persons, but ludicrous
ideas. Hence he is never offensive, and steals away willingly into his
train of belief persons who were opposed to him. For the first half-hour
his opponents would agree with every word he uttered; and from that
point he began to lead them off little by little, until it seemed as
if he had got them all into his fold. He displays more shrewdness, more
knowledge of the masses of mankind, than any public speaker we have
heard since Long Jim Wilson left for California."
On the morning after the Norwich speech, Mr. Lincoln was met, or is
said to have been met, in the cars by a preacher, one Gulliver,--a
name suggestive of fictions. Gulliver says he told Mr. Lincoln that
he thought his speech "the most remarkable one he ever heard." Lincoln
doubted his sincerity; but Gulliver persisted. "Indeed, sir," said he,
"I learned more of the art of public speaking last evening than I could
from a whole course of lectures on rhetoric." Lincoln found he had in
hand a clerical sycophant, and a little politician at that,--a class of
beings whom he most heartily despised. Whereupon he began to quiz the
fellow, and told him, for a most "remarkable circumstance," that the
professors of Yale College were running all around after him, taking
notes of his speeches, and lecturing about him to the classes. "Now,"
continued he, "I should like very much to know what it was in my speech
which you thought so remarkable, and which interested my friend the
professor so much?" Gulliver was equal to the occasion, and answered
with an opinion which Mr. Bunsby might have delivered, and died,
leaving to the world a reputation perfected by that single saying. "The
clearness of your statements," said Gulliver, "the unanswerable style
of your reasoning, and especially your illustrations, which were romance
and pathos, and fun and logic, all welded together." Gulliver closed the
interview with the cant peculiar to his kind. "Mr. Lincoln," said he,
"may I say one thing to you before we separate?"--"Certainly; any thing
you please," replied the good-natured old Abe. "You have just spoken,"
preached Gulliver, "of the tendency of political life in Washington
to debase the moral convictions of our representatives there by
the admixture of mere political expediency. You have become, by the
controversy with Mr. Douglas, one of our leaders in this great struggle
with slavery, which is undoubtedly the struggle of the nation and the
age. What I would like to say is this, and I say it with a full heart:
Be true to your principles; and we will be true to you, and God will be
true to us all." To which modest, pious, and original observation, Mr.
Lincoln responded, "I say Amen to that! Amen to that!"