superior devotion to the personal rights of men, holding the rights of
property to be secondary only, and greatly inferior, and assuming that the
so-called Democracy of to-day are the Jefferson, and their opponents
the anti-Jefferson, party, it will be equally interesting to note how
completely the two have changed hands as to the principle upon which they
were originally supposed to be divided. The Democracy of to-day hold the
liberty of one man to be absolutely nothing, when in conflict with another
man's right of property; Republicans, on the contrary, are for both the
man and the dollar, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar.
I remember being once much amused at seeing two partially intoxicated men
engaged in a fight with their great-coats on, which fight, after a long
and rather harmless contest, ended in each having fought himself out of
his own coat and into that of the other. If the two leading parties of
this day are really identical with the two in the days of Jefferson and
Adams, they have performed the same feat as the two drunken men.
But soberly, it is now no child's play to save the principles of Jefferson
from total overthrow in this nation. One would state with great confidence
that he could convince any sane child that the simpler propositions of
Euclid are true; but nevertheless he would fail, utterly, with one who
should deny the definitions and axioms. The principles of Jefferson are
the definitions and axioms of free society. And yet they are denied
and evaded, with no small show of success. One dashingly calls them
"glittering generalities." Another bluntly calls them "self-evident lies."
And others insidiously argue that they apply to "superior races." These
expressions, differing in form, are identical in object and effect--the
supplanting the principles of free government, and restoring those of
classification, caste, and legitimacy. They would delight a convocation
of crowned heads plotting against the people. They are the vanguard, the
miners and sappers, of returning despotism. We must repulse them, or they
will subjugate us. This is a world of compensation; and he who would be
no slave must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others
deserve it not for themselves, and, under a just God, cannot long retain
it. All honor to Jefferson to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a
struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness,
forecast, and capacity to introduce into a mere revolutionary document an
abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm
it there that to-day and in all coming days it shall be a rebuke and
a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of reappearing tyranny and
oppression.
Your obedient servant,
A. LINCOLN.
TO T. CANISIUS.
SPRINGFIELD, May 17, 1859.
DR. THEODORE CANISIUS.
DEAR SIR:--Your note asking, in behalf of yourself and other German
citizens, whether I am for or against the constitutional provision in
regard to naturalized citizens, lately adopted by Massachusetts, and
whether I am for or against a fusion of the Republicans and other
opposition elements for the canvass of 1860, is received.
Massachusetts is a sovereign and independent State; and it is no privilege
of mine to scold her for what she does. Still, if from what she has done
an inference is sought to be drawn as to what I would do, I may
without impropriety speak out. I say, then, that, as I understand the
Massachusetts provision, I am against its adoption in Illinois, or in any
other place where I have a right to oppose it. Understanding the spirit of
our institutions to aim at the elevation of men, I am opposed to whatever
tends to degrade them. I have some little notoriety for commiserating the
oppressed negro; and I should be strangely inconsistent if I could favor
any project for curtailing the existing rights of white men, even though
born in different lands, and speaking different languages from myself.
As to the matter of fusion, I am for it if it can be had on Republican
grounds; and I am not for it on any other terms. A fusion on any other
terms would be as foolish as unprincipled. It would lose the whole North,
while the common enemy would still carry the whole South. The question of
men is a different one. There are good, patriotic men and able statesmen
in the South whom I would cheerfully support, if they would now place
themselves on Republican ground, but I am against letting down the
Republican standard a hairsbreadth.
I have written this hastily, but I believe it answers your questions
substantially.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO THE GOVERNOR, AUDITOR, AND TREASURER OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.
GENTLEMEN:
In reply to your inquiry; requesting our written opinion as to what your
duty requires you to do in executing the latter clause of the Seventh
Section of "An Act in relation to the payment of the principal and
interest of the State debt," approved Feb'y 22, 1859, we reply that
said last clause of said section is certainly indefinite, general, and
ambiguous in its description of the bonds to be issued by you; giving no
time at which the bonds are to be made payable, no place at which either
principal or interest are to be paid, and no rate of interest which the
bonds are to bear; nor any other description except that they are to be
coupon bonds, which in commercial usage means interest-paying bonds
with obligations or orders attached to them for the payment of annual or
semiannual interest; there is we suppose no difficulty in ascertaining,
if this act stood alone, what ought to be the construction of the terms
"coupon bonds" and that it, would mean bonds bearing interest from the
time of issuing the same. And under this act considered by itself the
creditors would have a right to require such bonds. But your inquiry in
regard to a class of bonds on which no interest is to be paid or shall
begin to run until January 1, 1860, is whether the Act of February 18,
1857, would not authorize you to refuse to give bonds with any coupons
attached payable before the first day of July, 1860. We have very maturely
considered this question and have arrived at the conclusion that you have
a right to use such measures as will secure the State against the loss of
six months' interest on these bonds by the indefiniteness of the Act of
1859. While it cannot be denied that the letter of the laws favor the
construction claimed by some of the creditors that interest-bearing bonds
were required to be issued to them, inasmuch as the restriction that no
interest is to run on said bonds until 1st January, 1860, relates solely
to the bonds issued under the Act of 1857. And the Act of 1859 directing
you to issue new bonds does not contain this restriction, but directs you
to issue coupon bonds. Nevertheless the very indefiniteness and generality
of the Act of 1859, giving no rate of interest, no time due, no place of
payment, no postponement of the time when interest commences, necessarily
implies that the Legislature intended to invest you with a discretion to
impose such terms and restrictions as would protect the interest of the
State; and we think you have a right and that it is your duty to see that
the State Bonds are so issued that the State shall not lose six months'
interest. Two plans present themselves either of which will secure the
State. 1st. If in literal compliance with the law you issue bonds bearing
interest from 1st July, 1859, you may deduct from the bonds presented
three thousand from every $100,000 of bonds and issue $97,000 of
coupon bonds; by this plan $3000 out of $100,000 of principal would be
extinguished in consideration of paying $2910 interest on the first of
January, 1860--and the interest on the $3000 would forever cease; this
would be no doubt most advantageous to the State. But if the Auditor
will not consent to this, then, 2nd. Cut off of each bond all the coupons
payable before 1st July, 1860.
One of these plans would undoubtedly have been prescribed by the
Legislature if its attention had been directed to this question.
May 28, 1859.
ON LINCOLN'S SCRAP BOOK
TO H. C. WHITNEY.
SPRINGFIELD, December 25, 1858.
H. C. WHITNEY, ESQ.
MY DEAR SIR:--I have just received yours of the 23rd inquiring whether I
received the newspapers you sent me by express. I did receive them, and
am very much obliged. There is some probability that my scrap-book will be
reprinted, and if it shall, I will save you a copy.
Your friend as ever,
A. LINCOLN.
1859
FIRST SUGGESTION OF A PRESIDENTIAL OFFER.
TO S. GALLOWAY.
SPRINGFIELD, ILL., July 28, 1859.
HON. SAMUEL GALLOWAY.
MY DEAR SIR:--Your very complimentary, not to say flattering, letter of
the 23d inst. is received. Dr. Reynolds had induced me to expect you here;
and I was disappointed not a little by your failure to come. And yet I
fear you have formed an estimate of me which can scarcely be sustained on
a personal acquaintance.
Two things done by the Ohio Republican convention--the repudiation of
Judge Swan, and the "plank" for a repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law--I very
much regretted. These two things are of a piece; and they are viewed by
many good men, sincerely opposed to slavery, as a struggle against, and in
disregard of, the Constitution itself. And it is the very thing that
will greatly endanger our cause, if it be not kept out of our national
convention. There is another thing our friends are doing which gives me
some uneasiness. It is their leaning toward "popular sovereignty." There
are three substantial objections to this: First, no party can command
respect which sustains this year what it opposed last. Secondly, Douglas
(who is the most dangerous enemy of liberty, because the most insidious
one) would have little support in the North, and by consequence, no
capital to trade on in the South, if it were not for his friends thus
magnifying him and his humbug. But lastly, and chiefly, Douglas's popular
sovereignty, accepted by the public mind as a just principle, nationalizes
slavery, and revives the African slave trade inevitably.
Taking slaves into new Territories, and buying slaves in Africa, are
identical things, identical rights or identical wrongs, and the argument
which establishes one will establish the other. Try a thousand years for
a sound reason why Congress shall not hinder the people of Kansas from
having slaves, and, when you have found it, it will be an equally good one
why Congress should not hinder the people of Georgia from importing slaves
from Africa.
As to Governor Chase, I have a kind side for him. He was one of the few
distinguished men of the nation who gave us, in Illinois, their sympathy
last year. I never saw him, but suppose him to be able and right-minded;
but still he may not be the most suitable as a candidate for the
Presidency.
I must say I do not think myself fit for the Presidency. As you propose a
correspondence with me, I shall look for your letters anxiously.
I have not met Dr. Reynolds since receiving your letter; but when I shall,
I will present your respects as requested.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
IT IS BAD TO BE POOR.
TO HAWKINS TAYLOR
SPRINGFIELD, ILL. Sept. 6, 1859.
HAWKINS TAYLOR, Esq.
DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 3d is just received. There is some mistake about
my expected attendance of the U.S. Court in your city on the 3d Tuesday of
this month. I have had no thought of being there.
It is bad to be poor. I shall go to the wall for bread and meat if I
neglect my business this year as well as last. It would please me much
to see the city and good people of Keokuk, but for this year it is little
less than an impossibility. I am constantly receiving invitations which I
am compelled to decline. I was pressingly urged to go to Minnesota; and I
now have two invitations to go to Ohio. These last are prompted by Douglas
going there; and I am really tempted to make a flying trip to Columbus and
Cincinnati.
I do hope you will have no serious trouble in Iowa. What thinks Grimes
about it? I have not known him to be mistaken about an election in Iowa.
Present my respects to Col. Carter, and any other friends, and believe me
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
SPEECH AT COLUMBUS, OHIO.
SEPTEMBER 16, 1859.
FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF OHIO: I cannot fail to remember that I
appear for the first time before an audience in this now great State,--an
audience that is accustomed to hear such speakers as Corwin, and Chase,
and Wade, and many other renowned men; and, remembering this, I feel
that it will be well for you, as for me, that you should not raise your
expectations to that standard to which you would have been justified in
raising them had one of these distinguished men appeared before you. You
would perhaps be only preparing a disappointment for yourselves, and, as
a consequence of your disappointment, mortification to me. I hope,
therefore, that you will commence with very moderate expectations; and
perhaps, if you will give me your attention, I shall be able to interest
you to a moderate degree.
Appearing here for the first time in my life, I have been somewhat
embarrassed for a topic by way of introduction to my speech; but I have
been relieved from that embarrassment by an introduction which the Ohio
Statesman newspaper gave me this morning. In this paper I have read an
article, in which, among other statements, I find the following:
"In debating with Senator Douglas during the memorable contest of last
fall, Mr. Lincoln declared in favor of negro suffrage, and attempted to
defend that vile conception against the Little Giant."
I mention this now, at the opening of my remarks, for the purpose of
making three comments upon it. The first I have already announced,--it
furnishes me an introductory topic; the second is to show that the
gentleman is mistaken; thirdly, to give him an opportunity to correct it.
In the first place, in regard to this matter being a mistake. I have found
that it is not entirely safe, when one is misrepresented under his very
nose, to allow the misrepresentation to go uncontradicted. I
therefore propose, here at the outset, not only to say that this is a
misrepresentation, but to show conclusively that it is so; and you will
bear with me while I read a couple of extracts from that very "memorable"
debate with Judge Douglas last year, to which this newspaper refers. In
the first pitched battle which Senator Douglas and myself had, at the
town of Ottawa, I used the language which I will now read. Having been
previously reading an extract, I continued as follows:
"Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any greater length, but this is
the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution
of slavery and the black race. This is the whole of it; and anything that
argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the
negro, is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a
man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I will say here,
while upon this subject, that I have no purpose directly or indirectly to
interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists.
I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do
so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between
the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the
two which, in my judgment, will probably forbid their ever living together
upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a
necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas,
am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I
have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding
all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to
all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence,--the
right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as
much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with judge Douglas, he
is not my equal in many respects,--certainly not in color, perhaps not
in moral or intellectual endowments. But in the right to eat the bread,
without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal,
and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man."
Upon a subsequent occasion, when the reason for making a statement like
this occurred, I said:
"While I was at the hotel to-day an elderly gentleman called upon me to
know whether I was really in favor of producing perfect equality between
the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this
occasion to say much on that subject, yet, as the question was asked me, I
thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard
to it. I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of
bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white
and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making
voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, or
intermarry with the white people; and I will say in addition to this that
there is a physical difference between the white and black races which
I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of
social and political equality. And inasmuch as they can not so live,
while they do remain together there must be the position of superior
and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the
superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion
I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior
position, the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that
because I do not want a negro woman for a slave, I must necessarily want
her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am
now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for
either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get
along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this
that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child, who was
in favor of producing perfect equality, social and political, between
negroes and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instance that
I ever heard of so frequently as to be satisfied of its correctness, and
that is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend Colonel Richard M. Johnson.
I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter
at large upon this subject), that I have never had the least apprehension
that I or my friends would marry negroes, if there was no law to keep
them from it; but as judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great
apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I
give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the
law of the State which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes."
There, my friends, you have briefly what I have, upon former occasions,
said upon this subject to which this newspaper, to the extent of its
ability, has drawn the public attention. In it you not only perceive, as a
probability, that in that contest I did not at any time say I was in favor
of negro suffrage, but the absolute proof that twice--once substantially,
and once expressly--I declared against it. Having shown you this, there
remains but a word of comment upon that newspaper article. It is this,
that I presume the editor of that paper is an honest and truth-loving man,
and that he will be greatly obliged to me for furnishing him thus early
an opportunity to correct the misrepresentation he has made, before it has
run so long that malicious people can call him a liar.
The Giant himself has been here recently. I have seen a brief report of
his speech. If it were otherwise unpleasant to me to introduce the subject
of the negro as a topic for discussion, I might be somewhat relieved by
the fact that he dealt exclusively in that subject while he was here. I
shall, therefore, without much hesitation or diffidence, enter upon this
subject.
The American people, on the first day of January, 1854, found the African
slave trade prohibited by a law of Congress. In a majority of the States
of this Union, they found African slavery, or any other sort of slavery,
prohibited by State constitutions. They also found a law existing,
supposed to be valid, by which slavery was excluded from almost all the
territory the United States then owned. This was the condition of the
country, with reference to the institution of slavery, on the first of
January, 1854. A few days after that, a bill was introduced into Congress,
which ran through its regular course in the two branches of the national
legislature, and finally passed into a law in the month of May, by which
the Act of Congress prohibiting slavery from going into the Territories of
the United States was repealed. In connection with the law itself, and, in
fact, in the terms of the law, the then existing prohibition was not only
repealed, but there was a declaration of a purpose on the part of Congress
never thereafter to exercise any power that they might have, real or
supposed, to prohibit the extension or spread of slavery. This was a very
great change; for the law thus repealed was of more than thirty years'
standing. Following rapidly upon the heels of this action of Congress,
a decision of the Supreme Court is made, by which it is declared that
Congress, if it desires to prohibit the spread of slavery into the
Territories, has no constitutional power to do so. Not only so, but
that decision lays down principles which, if pushed to their logical
conclusion,--I say pushed to their logical conclusion,--would decide
that the constitutions of free States, forbidding slavery, are themselves
unconstitutional. Mark me, I do not say the judges said this, and let
no man say I affirm the judges used these words; but I only say it is my
opinion that what they did say, if pressed to its logical conclusion, will
inevitably result thus.
Looking at these things, the Republican party, as I understand its
principles and policy, believes that there is great danger of the
institution of slavery being spread out and extended until it is
ultimately made alike lawful in all the States of this Union; so
believing, to prevent that incidental and ultimate consummation is the
original and chief purpose of the Republican organization. I say "chief
purpose" of the Republican organization; for it is certainly true that if
the National House shall fall into the hands of the Republicans, they will
have to attend to all the other matters of national house-keeping, as well
as this. The chief and real purpose of the Republican party is eminently
conservative. It proposes nothing save and except to restore this
government to its original tone in regard to this element of slavery, and
there to maintain it, looking for no further change in reference to it
than that which the original framers of the Government themselves expected
and looked forward to.
The chief danger to this purpose of the Republican party is not just now
the revival of the African slave trade, or the passage of a Congressional
slave code, or the declaring of a second Dred Scott decision, making
slavery lawful in all the States. These are not pressing us just now. They
are not quite ready yet. The authors of these measures know that we are
too strong for them; but they will be upon us in due time, and we will be
grappling with them hand to hand, if they are not now headed off. They are
not now the chief danger to the purpose of the Republican organization;
but the most imminent danger that now threatens that purpose is that
insidious Douglas popular sovereignty. This is the miner and sapper. While
it does not propose to revive the African slave trade, nor to pass a slave
code, nor to make a second Dred Scott decision, it is preparing us for the
onslaught and charge of these ultimate enemies when they shall be ready to
come on, and the word of command for them to advance shall be given. I say
this "Douglas popular sovereignty"; for there is a broad distinction, as I
now understand it, between that article and a genuine popular sovereignty.