The clue is in that element of internationalism which lay at the back of

his mind. There must be no misunderstanding of this element. It was not

pointing along the way of the modern "international." Lincoln would have

fought Bolshevism to the death. Side by side with his assertion of the

sanctity of the international bond of labor, stands his assertion of

a sacred right in property and that capital is a necessity.(5) His

internationalism was ethical, not opportunistic. It grew, as all

his ideas grew, not out of a theorem, not from a constitutional

interpretation, but from his overpowering commiseration for the mass

of mankind. It was a practical matter. Here were poor people to be

assisted, to be enriched in their estate, to be enlarged in spirit. The

mode of reaching the result was not the thing. Any mode, all sorts of

modes, might be used. What counted was the purpose to work relief, and

the willingness to throw overboard whatever it might be that tended to

defeat the purpose. His internationalism was but a denial of "my country

right or wrong." There can be little doubt that, in last resort, he

would have repudiated his country rather than go along with it in

opposition to what he regarded as the true purpose of government. And

that was, to advance the welfare of the mass of mankind.

He thought upon this subject in the same manner in which he thought as

a lawyer, sweeping aside everything but what seemed to him the ethical

reality at the heart of the case. For him the "right" of a State to do

this or that was a constitutional question only so long as it did not

cross that other more universal "right," the paramount "charter of

liberty," by which, in his view, all other rights were conditioned. He

would impose on all mankind, as their basic moral obligation, the duty

to sacrifice all personal likes, personal ambitions, when these in their

permanent tendencies ran contrary to the tendency which he rated as

paramount. Such had always been, and was always to continue, his own

attitude toward slavery. No one ever loathed it more. But he never

permitted it to take the first place in his thoughts. If it could

be eradicated without in the process creating dangers for popular

government he would rejoice. But all the schemes of the Abolitionists,

hitherto, he had condemned as dangerous devices because they would

strain too severely the fabric of the popular state, would violate

agreements which alone made it possible. Therefore, being always

relentless toward himself, he required of himself the renunciation of

this personal hope whenever, in whatever way, it threatened to make less

effective the great democratic state which appeared to him the central

fact of the world.

The enlargement of his reasoning led him inevitably to an unsparing

condemnation of the Virginian theory. One of his rare flashes of

irritation was an exclamation that Virginia loyalty always had an

"if."(6) At this point, to make him entirely plain, there is needed

another basic assumption which he has never quite formulated. However,

it is so obviously latent in his thinking that the main lines are to be

made out clearly enough. Building ever on that paramount obligation

of all mankind to consider first the welfare of God's plain people, he

assumed that whenever by any course of action any congregation of men

were thrown together and led to form any political unit, they were never

thereafter free to disregard in their attitude toward that unit its

value in supporting and advancing the general cause of the welfare of

the plain people. A sweeping, and in some contingencies, a terrible

doctrine! Certainly, as to individuals, classes, communities even, a

doctrine that might easily become destructive. But it formed the basis

of all Lincoln's thought about the "majority" in America. Upon it

would have rested his reply, had he ever made a reply, to the Virginia

contention that while his theory might apply to each individual State,

it could not apply to the group of States. He would have treated such

a reply, whether fairly or unfairly, as a legal technicality. He would

have said in substance: here is a congregation to be benefited, this

great mass of all the inhabitants of all the States of the Union;

accident, or destiny, or what you will, has brought them together, but

here they are; they are moving forward, haltingly, irregularly, but

steadily, toward fuller and fuller democracy; they are part of

the universal democratic movement; their vast experiment has an

international significance; it is the hope of the "Liberal party

throughout the world"; to check that experiment, to break it into

Separate minor experiments; to reduce the imposing promise of its

example by making it seem unsuccessful, would be treason to mankind.

Therefore, both on South and North, both on the Seceders he meant to

fight and on those Northerners of whom he was not entirely sure, he

aimed to impose the supreme immediate duty of proving to the world that

democracy on a great scale could have sufficient vitality to maintain

itself against any sort of attack. Anticipating faintly the Gettysburg

oration, the first message contained these words: "And this issue

embraces more than the fate of these United States. It presents to the

whole family of man the question whether a constitutional republic, or

democracy--a government of the people by the same people--can or can

not maintain its integrity against its own domestic foes. . . . Must a

government of necessity be too strong for the liberties of its people

or too weak to maintain its own existence?"(7) He told Hay that "the

crucial idea pervading this struggle is the necessity that is upon us

to prove that popular government is not an absurdity"; "that the basal

issue was whether or no the people could govern themselves."(8)

But all this elaborate reasoning, if it went no further, lacked

authority. It was political speculation. To clothe itself with authority

it had to discover a foundation in historic fact. The real difficulty

was not what ought to have been established in America in the past,

but what actually had been. Where was the warrant for those bold

proposition--who "we, the people," really were; in what their sovereign

power really consisted; what was history's voice in the matter? To state

an historic foundation was the final aim of the message. To hit its mark

it had to silence those Northerners who denied the obligation to fight

for the Union; it had to oppose their "free love" ideas of political

unity with the conception of an established historic government, one

which could not be overthrown except through the nihilistic process

of revolution. So much has been written upon the exact location of

sovereignty in the American federal State that it is difficult to escape

the legalistic attitude, and to treat the matter purely as history. So

various, so conflicting, and at times so tenuous, are the theories,

that a flippant person might be forgiven did he turn from the whole

discussion saying impatiently it was blind man's buff. But on one thing,

at least, we must all agree. Once there was a king over this country,

and now there is no king. Once the British Crown was the sovereign, and

now the Crown has receded into the distance beyond the deep blue sea.

When the Crown renounced its sovereignty in America, what became of it?

Did it break into fragments and pass peacemeal to the various revolted

colonies? Was it transferred somehow to the group collectively? These

are the obvious theories; but there are others. And the others give

rise to subtler speculations. Who was it that did the actual revolting

against the Crown--colonies, parties, individuals, the whole American

people, who?

Troublesome questions these, with which Lincoln and the men of his time

did not deal in the spirit of historical science. Their wishes fathered

their thoughts. Southerners, practically without exception, held

the theory of the disintegration of the Crown's prerogative, its

distribution among the States. The great leaders of Northern thought

repudiated the idea. Webster and Clay would have none of it. But

their own theories were not always consistent; and they differed

among themselves. Lincoln did the natural thing. He fastened upon the

tendencies in Northern thought that supported his own faith. Chief among

these was the idea that sovereignty passed to the general congregation

of the inhabitants of the colonies--"we, the people"--because we, the

people, were the real power that supported the revolt. He had accepted

the idea that the American Revolution was an uprising of the people,

that its victory was in a transfer of sovereign rights from an English

Crown to an American nation; that a new collective state, the Union, was

created by this nation as the first act of the struggle, and that it was

to the Union that the Crown succumbed, to the Union that its prerogative

passed. To put this idea in its boldest and its simplest terms was the

crowning effort of the message.

"The States have their status in the Union and they have no other legal

status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law and

by revolution. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their

independence and their liberty. By conquest or purchase, the Union gave

each of them whatever of independence and liberty it has. The Union is

older than any of the States, and in fact, it created them as States.

Originally some dependent colonies made the Union, and in turn, the

Union threw off this old dependence for them and made them States, such

as they are."(9)

This first message completes the evolution of Lincoln as a political

thinker. It is his third, his last great landmark. The Peoria speech,

which drew to a focus all the implications of his early life, laid the

basis of his political significance; the Cooper Union speech, summing

up his conflict with Douglas, applied his thinking to the new issue

precipitated by John Brown; but in both these he was still predominantly

a negative thinker, still the voice of an opposition. With the first

message, he became creative; he drew together what was latent in his

earlier thought; he discarded the negative; he laid the foundation of

all his subsequent policy. The breadth and depth of his thinking is

revealed by the fulness with which the message develops the implications

of his theory. In so doing, he anticipated the main issues that were to

follow: his determination to keep nationalism from being narrowed into

mere "Northernism"; his effort to create an all-parties government; his

stubborn insistence that he was suppressing an insurrection, not waging

external war; his doctrine that the Executive, having been chosen by the

entire people, was the one expression of the sovereignty of the people,

and therefore, the repository of all these exceptional "war powers" that

are dormant in time of peace. Upon each of those issues he was destined

to wage fierce battles with the politicians who controlled Congress, who

sought to make Congress his master, who thwarted, tormented and almost

defeated him. In the light of subsequent history the first message has

another aspect besides its significance as political science. In its

clear understanding of the implications of his attitude, it attains

political second sight. As Lincoln, immovable, gazes far into the

future, his power of vision makes him, yet again though in a widely

different sense, the "seer in a trance, Seeing all his own mischance."

His troubles with Congress began at once. The message was received on

July fourth, politely, but with scant response to its ideas. During

two weeks, while Congress in its fatuousness thought that the battle

impending in Virginia would settle things, the majority in Congress

would not give assent to Lincoln's view of what the war was about. And

then came Bull Run. In a flash the situation changed. Fatuousness was

puffed out like a candle in a wind. The rankest extremist saw that

Congress must cease from its debates and show its hand; must say what

the war was about; must inform the nation whether it did or did not

agree with the President.

On the day following Bull Run, Crittenden introduced this resolution:

"That the present, deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country

by the Disunionists of the Southern States, now in arms against the

constitutional government, and in arms around the capital; that in this

national emergency, Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion and

resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this

war is not waged on their part in any spirit of oppression or for

any purpose of conquest or subjugation, or purpose of overthrowing or

interfering with the rights or established institutions of these States,

but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and to

preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of

the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are

accomplished, the war ought to cease." This Crittenden Resolution was

passed instantly by both Houses, without debate and almost without

opposition. (10)

Paradoxically, Bull Run had saved the day for Lincoln, had enabled him

to win his first victory as a statesman.

XVIII. THE JACOBIN CLUB

The keen Englishman who had observed the beauty of the Virginian woods

on "Bull Run Sunday," said, after the battle was lost, "I hope Senator

Wilson is satisfied." He was sneering at the whole group of intemperate

Senators none of whom had ever smelled powder, but who knew it all when

it came to war; who had done their great share in driving the President

and the generals into a premature advance. Senator Wilson was one of

those who went out to Manassas to see the Confederacy overthrown, that

fateful Sunday. He was one of the most precipitate among those who fled

back to Washington. On the way, driving furiously, amid a press of men

and vehicles, he passed a carriage containing four Congressmen who were

taking their time. Perhaps irritated by their coolness, he shouted to

them to make haste. "If we were in as big a hurry as you are," replied

Congressman Riddle, scornfully, "we would."

These four Congressmen played a curiously dramatic part before they got

back to Washington. So did a party of Senators with whom they joined

forces. This other party, at the start, also numbered four. They had

planned a jolly picnic--this day that was to prove them right in

hurrying the government into battle!--and being wise men who knew how

to take time by the forelock, they had taken their luncheon with them.

From what is known of Washington and Senators, then as now, one may risk

a good deal that the luncheon was worth while. Part of the tragedy of

that day was the accidental break-up of this party with the result amid

the confusion of a road crowded by pleasure-seekers, that two Senators

went one way carrying off the luncheon, while the other two, making the

best of the disaster, continued southward through those beautiful early

hours when Russell was admiring the scenery, their luncheon all to seek.

The lucky men with the luncheon were the Senators Benjamin Wade

and Zachary Chandler. Senator Trumbull and Senator Grimes, both on

horseback, were left to their own devices. However, fortune was with

them. Several hours later they had succeeded in getting food by the

wayside and were resting in a grove of trees some distance beyond the

village of Centerville. Suddenly, they suffered an appalling surprise;

happening to look up, they beheld emerging out of the distance, a

stampede of men and horses which came thundering down the country road,

not a hundred yards from where they sat. "We immediately mounted our

horses," as Trumbull wrote to his wife the next day, "and galloped to

the road, by which time it was crowded, hundreds being in advance on

the way to Centerville and two guns of Sherman's battery having already

passed in full retreat. We kept on with the crowd, not knowing what else

to do. We fed our horses at Centerville and left there at six o'clock....

Came on to Fairfax Court House where we got supper and, leaving there at

ten o'clock reached home at half past two this morning. . . . I am

dreadfully disappointed and mortified."(1)

Meanwhile, what of those other gay picnickers, Senator Wade and Senator

Chandler? They drove in a carriage. Viewing the obligations of the hour

much as did C. C. Clay at the President's reception, they were armed.

Wade had "his famous rifle" which he had brought with him to Congress,

which at times in the fury of debate he had threatened to use, which

had become a byword. These Senators seem to have ventured nearer to

the front than did Trumbull and Grimes, and were a little later in the

retreat At a "choke-up," still on the far side of Centerville, their

carriage passed the carriage of the four Congressmen--who, by the way,

were also armed, having among them "four of the largest navy revolvers."

All these men, whatever their faults or absurdities, were intrepid.

The Congressmen, at least, were in no good humor, for they had driven

through a regiment of three months men whose time expired that day and

who despite the cannon in the distance were hurrying home.

The race of the fugitives continued. At Centerville, the Congressmen

passed Wade. Soon afterward Wade passed them for the second time. About

a mile out of Fairfax Court House, "at the foot of a long down grade,

the pike on the northerly side was fenced and ran along a farm. On the

other side for a considerable distance was a wood, utterly impenetrable

for men or animals, larger than cats or squirrels." Here the Wade

carriage stopped. The congressional carriage drove up beside it. The two

blocked a narrow way where as in the case of Horatius at the bridge,

"a thousand might well be stopped by three." And then "bluff Ben Wade"

showed the mettle that was in him. The "old Senator, his hat well back

on his head," sprang out of his carriage, his rifle in his hand, and

called to the others, "Boys, we'll stop this damned runaway." And they

did it. Only six of them, but they lined up across that narrow road;

presented their weapons and threatened to shoot; seized the bridles

of horses and flung the horses back on their haunches; checked a

panic-stricken army; held it at bay, until just when it seemed they were

about to be overwhelmed, military reserves hurrying out from Fairfax

Court House, took command of the road. Cool, unpretentious Riddle calls

the episode "Wade's exploit," and adds "it was much talked of." The

newspapers dealt with it extravagantly.(2)

Gallant as the incident was, it was all the military service that "Ben"

Wade and "Zach" Chandler--for thus they are known in history-over saw.

But one may believe that it had a lasting effect upon their point of

view and on that of their friend Lyman Trumbull. Certain it is that none

of the three thereafter had any doubts about putting the military men

in their place. All the error of their own view previous to Bull Run was

forgotten. Wade and Chandler, especially, when military questions were

in dispute, felt that no one possibly could know more of the subject

than did the men who stopped the rout in the narrow road beyond Fairfax.

Three of those picnickers who missed their guess on Bull Run Sunday,

Wade, Chandler and Trumbull, were destined to important parts in the

stern years that were to come. Before the close of the year 1861 the

three made a second visit to the army; and this time they kept together.

To that second visit momentous happenings may be traced. How it came

about must be fully understood.

Two of the three, Wade and Chandler, were temperamentally incapable of

understanding Lincoln. Both were men of fierce souls; each had but

a very limited experience. Wade had been a country lawyer in Ohio;

Chandler, a prosperous manufacturer in Michigan. They were party men by

instinct, blind to the faults of their own side, blind to the virtues

of their enemies. They were rabid for the control of the government by

their own organized machine.

Of Chandler, in Michigan, it was said that he "carried the Republican

organization in his breeches pocket"; partly through control of the

Federal patronage, which Lincoln frankly conceded to him, partly through

a "judicious use of money."(3) Chandler's first clash with Lincoln was

upon the place that the Republican machine was to hold in the conduct of

the war.

From the beginning Lincoln was resolved that the war should not be

merely a party struggle. Even before he was inaugurated, he said that

he meant to hold the Democrats "close to the Administration on the

naked Union issue."(4) He had added, "We must make it easy for them" to

support the government "because we can't live through the case without

them." This was the foundation of his attempt--so obvious between the

lines of the first message--to create an all-parties government. This,

Chandler violently opposed. Violence was always Chandler's note, so much

so that a scornful opponent once called him "Xantippe in pants."

Lincoln had given Chandler a cause of offense in McClellan's elevation

to the head of the army.* McClellan was a Democrat. There can be little

doubt that Lincoln took the fact into account in selecting him. Shortly

before, Lincoln had aimed to placate the Republicans by showing high

honor to their popular hero, Fremont.

* Strictly speaking he did not become head of the army until

the retirement of Scott in November. Practically, he was

supreme almost from the moment of his arrival in Washington.

When the catastrophe occurred at Bull Run, Fremont was a major-general

commanding the Western Department with headquarters at St. Louis. He

was one of the same violent root-and-branch wing of the Republicans--the

Radicals of a latter day--of which Chandler was a leader. The temper of

that wing had already been revealed by Senator Baker in his startling

pronouncement: "We of the North control the Union, and we are going to

govern our own Union in our own way." Chandler was soon to express it

still more exactly, saying, "A rebel has sacrificed all his rights. He

has no right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness."(5) Here

was that purpose to narrowing nationalism into Northernism, even to

radicalism, and to make the war an outlet for a sectional ferocity,

which Lincoln was so firmly determined to prevent. All things

considered, the fact that on the day following Bull Run he did not

summon the Republican hero to Washington, that he did summon a Democrat,

was significant. It opened his long duel with the extremists.

The vindictive Spirit of the extremists had been rebuffed by Lincoln

in another way. Shortly after Bull Run, Wade and Chandler appealed to

Lincoln to call out negro soldiers. Chandler said that he did not care

whether or no this would produce a servile insurrection in the South.

Lincoln's refusal made another count in the score of the extremists

against him.(6)

During the late summer of 1861, Chandler, Wade, Trumbull, were all

busily organizing their forces for an attack on the Administration.

Trumbull, indeed, seemed out of place in that terrible company. In time,

he found that he was out of place. At a crucial moment he came over

to Lincoln. But not until he had done yeoman service with Lincoln's

bitterest enemies. The clue to his earlier course was an honest

conviction that Lincoln, though well-intentioned, was weak.(7) Was this

the nemesis of Lincoln's pliability in action during the first stage

of his Presidency? It may be. The firm inner Lincoln, the unyielding

thinker of the first message, was not appreciated even by well-meaning

men like Trumbull. The inner and the outer Lincoln were still

disconnected. And the outer, in his caution, in his willingness to be

instructed, in his opposition to extreme measures, made the inevitable

impression that temperance makes upon fury, caution upon rashness.

Lincoln; An Account of his Personal Life, Especially of its Springs of Action as Revealed and Deepened by the Ordeal of War · 第 12 / 30 段