what I have said as between Kentucky and Ohio, I repeat as between
Indiana and Kentucky: it is equally applicable. One additional argument
is applicable also to Indiana. In her Territorial condition she more than
once petitioned Congress to abrogate the Ordinance entirely, or at least
so far as to suspend its operation for a time, in order that they should
exercise the "popular sovereignty" of having slaves if they wanted them.
The men then controlling the General Government, imitating the men of the
Revolution, refused Indiana that privilege. And so we have the evidence
that Indiana supposed she could have slaves, if it were not for that
Ordinance; that she besought Congress to put that barrier out of the way;
that Congress refused to do so; and it all ended at last in Indiana being
a free State. Tell me not then that the Ordinance of '87 had nothing to do
with making Indiana a free State, when we find some men chafing against,
and only restrained by, that barrier.
Come down again to our State of Illinois. The great Northwest Territory,
including Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, was acquired
first, I believe, by the British Government, in part at least, from the
French. Before the establishment of our independence it became a part
of Virginia, enabling Virginia afterward to transfer it to the General
Government. There were French settlements in what is now Illinois, and at
the same time there were French settlements in what is now Missouri, in
the tract of country that was not purchased till about 1803. In these
French settlements negro slavery had existed for many years, perhaps more
than a hundred; if not as much as two hundred years,--at Kaskaskia, in
Illinois, and at St. Genevieve, or Cape Girardeau, perhaps, in Missouri.
The number of slaves was not very great, but there was about the same
number in each place. They were there when we acquired the Territory.
There was no effort made to break up the relation of master and slave, and
even the Ordinance of 1787 was not so enforced as to destroy that slavery
in Illinois; nor did the Ordinance apply to Missouri at all.
What I want to ask your attention to; at this point, is that Illinois and
Missouri came into the Union about the same time, Illinois in the latter
part of 1818, and Missouri, after a struggle, I believe sometime in 1820.
They had been filling up with American people about the same period of
time; their progress enabling them to come into the Union about the same
time. At the end of that ten years, in which they had been so preparing
(for it was about that period of time), the number of slaves in Illinois
had actually decreased; while in Missouri, beginning with very few, at the
end of that ten years there were about ten thousand. This being so, and it
being remembered that Missouri and Illinois are, to a certain extent, in
the same parallel of latitude, that the northern half of Missouri and the
southern half of Illinois are in the same parallel of latitude, so that
climate would have the same effect upon one as upon the other, and that in
the soil there is no material difference so far as bears upon the question
of slavery being settled upon one or the other,--there being none of those
natural causes to produce a difference in filling them, and yet there
being a broad difference to their filling up, we are led again to inquire
what was the cause of that difference.
It is most natural to say that in Missouri there was no law to keep that
country from filling up with slaves, while in Illinois there was the
Ordinance of The Ordinance being there, slavery decreased during that ten
years; the Ordinance not being in the other, it increased from a few to
ten thousand. Can anybody doubt the reason of the difference?
I think all these facts most abundantly prove that my friend Judge
Douglas's proposition, that the Ordinance of '87, or the national
restriction of slavery, never had a tendency to make a free State, is a
fallacy,--a proposition without the shadow or substance of truth about it.
Douglas sometimes says that all the States (and it is part of this same
proposition I have been discussing) that have become free have become so
upon his "great principle"; that the State of Illinois itself came
into the Union as a slave State, and that the people, upon the "great
principle" of popular sovereignty, have since made it a free State. Allow
me but a little while to state to you what facts there are to justify him
in saying that Illinois came into the Union as a slave State.
I have mentioned to you that there were a few old French slaves there.
They numbered, I think, one or two hundred. Besides that, there had been
a Territorial law for indenturing black persons. Under that law, in
violation of the Ordinance of '87, but without any enforcement of the
Ordinance to overthrow the system, there had been a small number of
slaves introduced as indentured persons. Owing to this, the clause for
the prohibition of slavery was slightly modified. Instead of running like
yours, that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except for crime,
of which the party shall have been duly convicted, should exist in the
State, they said that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should
thereafter be introduced; and that the children of indentured servants
should be born free; and nothing was said about the few old French slaves.
Out of this fact, that the clause for prohibiting slavery was modified
because of the actual presence of it, Douglas asserts again and again that
Illinois came into the Union as a slave State. How far the facts sustain
the conclusion that he draws, it is for intelligent and impartial men
to decide. I leave it with you, with these remarks, worthy of being
remembered, that that little thing, those few indentured servants being
there, was of itself sufficient to modify a constitution made by a people
ardently desiring to have a free constitution; showing the power of the
actual presence of the institution of slavery to prevent any people,
however anxious to make a free State, from making it perfectly so.
I have been detaining you longer, perhaps, than I ought to do.
I am in some doubt whether to introduce another topic upon which I could
talk a while. [Cries of "Go on," and "Give us it."] It is this, then:
Douglas's Popular sovereignty, as a principle, is simply this: If one man
chooses to make a slave of another man, neither that man nor anybody else
has a right to object. Apply it to government, as he seeks to apply
it, and it is this: If, in a new Territory into which a few people are
beginning to enter for the purpose of making their homes, they choose
to either exclude slavery from their limits, or to establish it there,
however one or the other may affect the persons to be enslaved, or the
infinitely greater number of persons who are afterward to inhabit that
Territory, or the other members of the family of communities of which they
are but an incipient member, or the general head of the family of States
as parent of all, however their action may affect one or the other of
these, there is no power or right to interfere. That is Douglas's popular
sovereignty applied. Now, I think that there is a real popular sovereignty
in the world. I think the definition of popular sovereignty, in the
abstract, would be about this: that each man shall do precisely as he
pleases with himself, and with all those things which exclusively concern
him. Applied in government, this principle would be that a general
government shall do all those things which pertain to it, and all the
local governments shall do precisely as they please in respect to those
matters which exclusively concern them.
Douglas looks upon slavery as so insignificant that the people must decide
that question for themselves; and yet they are not fit to decide who
shall be their governor, judge, or secretary, or who shall be any of
their officers. These are vast national matters in his estimation; but the
little matter in his estimation is that of planting slavery there. That
is purely of local interest, which nobody should be allowed to say a word
about.
Labor is the great source from which nearly all, if not all, human
comforts and necessities are drawn. There is a difference in opinion about
the elements of labor in society. Some men assume that there is necessary
connection between capital and labor, and that connection draws within
it the whole of the labor of the community. They assume that nobody works
unless capital excites them to work. They begin next to consider what is
the best way. They say there are but two ways: one is to hire men, and to
allure them to labor by their consent; the other is to buy the men, and
drive them, to it, and that is slavery. Having assumed that, they proceed
to discuss the question of whether the laborers themselves are better off
in the condition of slaves or of hired laborers, and they usually decide
that they are better off in the condition of slaves.
In the first place, I say that the whole thing is a mistake. That there is
a certain relation between capital and labor, I admit. That it does exist,
and rightfully exists, I think is true. That men who are industrious, and
sober, and honest in the pursuit of their own interests should after a
while accumulate capital, and after that should be allowed to enjoy it in
peace, and also, if they should choose, when they have accumulated it,
to use it to save themselves from actual labor, and hire other people
to labor for them, is right. In doing so they do not wrong the man they
employ, for they find men who have not of their own land to work upon,
or shops to work in, and who are benefited by working for others, hired
laborers, receiving their capital for it. Thus a few men, that own
capital, hire a few others, and these establish the relation of capital
and labor rightfully, a relation of which I make no complaint. But I
insist that that relation, after all, does not embrace more than one
eighth of the labor of the country.
[The speaker proceeded to argue that the hired laborer, with his ability
to become an employer, must have every precedence over him who labors
under the inducement of force. He continued:]
I have taken upon myself in the name of some of you to say that we expect
upon these principles to ultimately beat them. In order to do so, I think
we want and must have a national policy in regard to the institution of
slavery that acknowledges and deals with that institution as being
wrong. Whoever desires the prevention of the spread of slavery and the
nationalization of that institution yields all when he yields to any
policy that either recognizes slavery as being right or as being an
indifferent thing. Nothing will make you successful but setting up a
policy which shall treat the thing as being wrong: When I say this, I do
not mean to say that this General Government is charged with the duty of
redressing or preventing all the wrongs in the world, but I do think that
it is charged with preventing and redressing all wrongs which are wrongs
to itself. This Government is expressly charged with the duty of providing
for the general welfare. We believe that the spreading out and
perpetuity of the institution of slavery impairs the general welfare.
We believe--nay, we know--that that is the only thing that has ever
threatened the perpetuity of the Union itself. The only thing which has
ever menaced the destruction of the government under which we live is this
very thing. To repress this thing, we think, is, Providing for the general
welfare. Our friends in Kentucky differ from us. We need not make our
argument for them, but we who think it is wrong in all its relations, or
in some of them at least, must decide as to our own actions and our own
course, upon our own judgment.
I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery in the
States where it exists, because the Constitution forbids it, and the
general welfare does not require us to do so. We must not withhold an
efficient Fugitive Slave law, because the Constitution requires us, as
I understand it, not to withhold such a law. But we must prevent the
outspreading of the institution, because neither the Constitution nor
general welfare requires us to extend it. We must prevent the revival of
the African slave trade, and the enacting by Congress of a Territorial
slave code. We must prevent each of these things being done by either
Congresses or courts. The people of these United States are the rightful
masters of both Congresses and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution,
but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.
To do these things we must employ instrumentalities. We must hold
conventions; we must adopt platforms, if we conform to ordinary custom;
we must nominate candidates; and we must carry elections. In all these
things, I think that we ought to keep in view our real purpose, and in
none do anything that stands adverse to our purpose. If we shall adopt a
platform that fails to recognize or express our purpose, or elect a man
that declares himself inimical to our purpose, we not only take nothing by
our success, but we tacitly admit that we act upon no other principle
than a desire to have "the loaves and fishes," by which, in the end, our
apparent success is really an injury to us.
I know that this is very desirable with me, as with everybody else, that
all the elements of the opposition shall unite in the next Presidential
election and in all future time. I am anxious that that should be; but
there are things seriously to be considered in relation to that matter.
If the terms can be arranged, I am in favor of the union. But suppose
we shall take up some man, and put him upon one end or the other of the
ticket, who declares himself against us in regard to the prevention of the
spread of slavery, who turns up his nose and says he is tired of hearing
anything more about it, who is more against us than against the enemy,
what will be the issue? Why, he will get no slave States, after all,--he
has tried that already until being beat is the rule for him. If we
nominate him upon that ground, he will not carry a slave State; and
not only so, but that portion of our men who are high-strung upon the
principle we really fight for will not go for him, and he won't get a
single electoral vote anywhere, except, perhaps, in the State of Maryland.
There is no use in saying to us that we are stubborn and obstinate because
we won't do some such thing as this. We cannot do it. We cannot get our
men to vote it. I speak by the card, that we cannot give the State of
Illinois in such case by fifty thousand. We would be flatter down than the
"Negro Democracy" themselves have the heart to wish to see us.
After saying this much let me say a little on the other side. There are
plenty of men in the slave States that are altogether good enough for me
to be either President or Vice-President, provided they will profess their
sympathy with our purpose, and will place themselves on the ground that
our men, upon principle, can vote for them. There are scores of them, good
men in their character for intelligence and talent and integrity. If such
a one will place himself upon the right ground, I am for his occupying one
place upon the next Republican or opposition ticket. I will heartily
go for him. But unless he does so place himself, I think it a matter of
perfect nonsense to attempt to bring about a union upon any other basis;
that if a union be made, the elements will scatter so that there can be no
success for such a ticket, nor anything like success. The good old maxims
of the Bible axe applicable, and truly applicable, to human affairs, and
in this, as in other things, we may say here that he who is not for us is
against us; he who gathereth not with us, scattereth. I should be glad to
have some of the many good and able and noble men of the South to place
themselves where we can confer upon them the high honor of an election
upon one or the other end of our ticket. It would do my soul good to do
that thing. It would enable us to teach them that, inasmuch as we select
one of their own number to carry out our principles, we are free from the
charge that we mean more than we say.
But, my friends, I have detained you much longer than I expected to do.
I believe I may do myself the compliment to say that you have stayed
and heard me with great patience, for which I return you my most sincere
thanks.
ON PROTECTIVE TARIFFS
TO EDWARD WALLACE.
CLINTON, October 11, 1859
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, inquiring 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 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
uncertainties, 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 on the
subject. I therefore wish this to be considered confidential. I shall be
very glad to receive a letter from you.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
ON MORTGAGES
TO W. DUNGY.
SPRINGFIELD, November, 2, 1859.
WM. DUNGY, Esq.
DEAR SIR:--Yours of October 27 is received. When a mortgage is given
to secure two notes, and one of the notes is sold and assigned, if the
mortgaged premises are only sufficient to pay one note, the one assigned
will take it all. Also, an execution from a judgment on the assigned note
may take it all; it being the same thing in substance. There is redemption
on execution sales from the United States Court just as from any other
court.
You did not mention the name of the plaintiff or defendant in the suit,
and so I can tell nothing about it as to sales, bids, etc. Write again.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
FRAGMENT OF SPEECH AT LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS,
DECEMBER, 1859.
............. But you Democrats are for the Union; and you greatly fear
the success of the Republicans would destroy the Union. Why? Do the
Republicans declare against the Union? Nothing like it. Your own statement
of it is that if the Black Republicans elect a President, you "won't stand
it." You will break up the Union. If we shall constitutionally elect a
President, it will be our duty to see that you submit. Old John Brown has
been executed for treason against a State. We cannot object, even though
he agreed with us in thinking slavery wrong. That cannot excuse violence,
bloodshed and treason. It could avail him nothing that he might think
himself right. So, if we constitutionally elect a President, and therefore
you undertake to destroy the Union, it will be our duty to deal with you
as old John Brown has been dealt with. We shall try to do our duty. We
hope and believe that in no section will a majority so act as to render
such extreme measures necessary.
TO G. W. DOLE, G. S. HUBBARD, AND W. H. BROWN.
SPRINGFIELD, Dec. 14, 1859
MESSRS. DOLE, HUBBARD & BROWN.
GENT.:--Your favor of the 12th is at hand, and it gives me pleasure to
be able to answer it. It is not my intention to take part in any of
the rivalries for the gubernatorial nomination; but the fear of being
misunderstood upon that subject ought not to deter me from doing justice
to Mr. Judd, and preventing a wrong being done to him by the use of nay
name in connection with alleged wrongs to me.
In answer to your first question, as to whether Mr. Judd was guilty of
any unfairness to me at the time of Senator Trumbull's election, I answer
unhesitatingly in the negative; Mr. Judd owed no political allegiance
to any party whose candidate I was. He was in the Senate, holding over,
having been elected by a Democratic Constituency. He never was in any
caucus of the friends who sought to make me U. S. Senator, never gave me
any promises or pledges to support me, and subsequent events have greatly
tended to prove the wisdom, politically, of Mr. Judd's course. The
election of Judge Trumbull strongly tended to sustain and preserve the
position of that lion of the Democrats who condemned the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise, and left them in a position of joining with us in
forming the Republican party, as was done at the Bloomington convention in
1856.
During the canvass of 1858 for the senatorship my belief was, and
still is, that I had no more sincere and faithful friend than Mr.
Judd--certainly none whom I trusted more. His position as chairman of the
State Central Committee led to my greater intercourse with him, and to
my giving him a larger share of my confidence, than with or to almost any
other friend; and I have never suspected that that confidence was, to any
degree, misplaced.
My relations with Mr. Judo since the organization of the Republican
party, in, our State, in 1856, and especially since the adjournment of the
Legislature in Feb., 1857, have been so very intimate that I deem it an
impossibility that he could have been dealing treacherously with me. He
has also, at all times, appeared equally true and faithful to the party.
In his position as chairman of the committee, I believe he did all that
any man could have done. The best of us are liable to commit errors, which
become apparent by subsequent developments; but I do not know of a single
error, even, committed by Mr. Judd, since he and I have acted together
politically.
I, had occasionally heard these insinuations against Mr. Judd, before the
receipt of your letter; and in no instance have I hesitated to pronounce
them wholly unjust, to the full extent of my knowledge and belief. I have
been, and still am, very anxious to take no part between the many friends,
all good and true, who are mentioned as candidates for a Republican
gubernatorial nomination; but I can not feel that my own honor is quite
clear if I remain silent when I hear any one of them assailed about
matters of which I believe I know more than his assailants.
I take pleasure in adding that, of all the avowed friends I had in the
canvass of last year, I do not suspect any of having acted treacherously
to me, or to our cause; and that there is not one of them in whose
honesty, honor, and integrity I, today, have greater confidence than I
have in those of Mr. Judd.
I dislike to appear before the public in this matter; but you are at
liberty to make such use of this letter as you may think justice requires.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO G. M. PARSONS AND OTHERS.
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, December 19, 1859.
MESSRS. G. M. PARSONS AND OTHERS, CENTRAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, ETC.
GENTLEMEN:--Your letter of the 7th instant, accompanied by a similar one
from the governor-elect, the Republican State officers, and the Republican
members of the State Board of Equalization of Ohio, both requesting of me,
for publication in permanent form, copies of the political debates between
Senator Douglas and myself last year, has been received. With my grateful
acknowledgments to both you and them for the very flattering terms in
which the request is communicated, I transmit you the copies. The copies I
send you are as reported and printed by the respective friends of Senator
Douglas and myself, at the time--that is, his by his friends, and mine by
mine. It would be an unwarrantable liberty for us to change a word or
a letter in his, and the changes I have made in mine, you perceive, are
verbal only, and very few in number. I wish the reprint to be precisely as
the copies I send, without any comment whatever.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
TO J. W. FELL,
SPRINGFIELD, December 20, 1859.
J. W. FELL, Esq.
MY DEAR SIR:--Herewith is a little sketch, as you requested. There is not
much of it, for the reason, I suppose, that there is not much of me. If
anything be made out of it, I wish it to be modest, and not to go beyond
the material. If it were thought necessary to incorporate anything from
any of my speeches I suppose there would be no objection. Of course it
must not appear to have been written by myself.
Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN
------