were both born in Virginia, of undistinguished families--second families,
perhaps I should say. My mother, who died in my tenth year, was of a
family of the name of Hanks, some of whom now reside in Adams, and others
in Macon County, Illinois. My paternal grandfather, Abraham Lincoln,
emigrated from Rockingham County, Virginia, to Kentucky about 1781 or
1782, where a year or two later he was killed by the Indians, not in
battle, but by stealth, when he was laboring to open a farm in the forest.
His ancestors, who were Quakers, went to Virginia from Berks County,
Pennsylvania. An effort to identify them with the New England family
of the same name ended in nothing more definite than a similarity of
Christian names in both families, such as Enoch, Levi, Mordecai, Solomon,
Abraham, and the like.
My father, at the death of his father, was but six years of age, and he
grew up literally without education. He removed from Kentucky to what is
now Spencer County, Indiana, in my eighth year. We reached our new home
about the time that State came into the Union. It was a wild region, with
many bears and other wild animals still in the woods. There I grew up.
There were some schools, so called, but no qualification was ever required
of a teacher beyond "readin', writin', and cipherin"' to the Rule of
Three. If a straggler supposed to understand Latin happened to sojourn
in the neighborhood he was looked upon as a wizard. There was absolutely
nothing to excite ambition for education. Of course, when I came of age I
did not know much. Still, somehow, I could read, write, and cipher to
the Rule of Three, but that was all. I have not been to school since. The
little advance I now have upon this store of education I have picked up
from time to time under the pressure of necessity.
I was raised to farm work, which I continued till I was twenty-two. At
twenty-one I came to Illinois, Macon County. Then I got to New Salem, at
that time in Sangamon, now in Menard County, where I remained a year as a
sort of clerk in a store. Then came the Black Hawk war; and I was elected
a captain of volunteers, a success which gave me more pleasure than any I
have had since. I went the campaign, was elected, ran for the Legislature
the same year (1832), and was beaten--the only time I ever have been
beaten by the people. The next and three succeeding biennial elections I
was elected to the Legislature. I was not a candidate afterward. During
this legislative period I had studied law, and removed to Springfield to
practice it. In 1846 I was once elected to the lower House of Congress.
Was not a candidate for re-election. From 1849 to 1854, both inclusive,
practiced law more assiduously than ever before. Always a Whig in
politics; and generally on the Whig electoral tickets, making active
canvasses. I was losing interest in politics when the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise aroused me again. What I have done since then is
pretty well known.
If any personal description of me is thought desirable, it may be said I
am, in height, six feet four inches, nearly; lean in flesh, weighing on an
average one hundred and eighty pounds; dark complexion, with coarse black
hair and gray eyes. No other marks or brands recollected.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
ON NOMINATION TO THE NATIONAL TICKET
To N. B. JUDD.
SPRINGFIELD, FEBRUARY 9, 1859
HON. N. B. JUDD.
DEAR Sir:--I am not in a position where it would hurt much for me to not
be nominated on the national ticket; but I am where it would hurt some
for me to not get the Illinois delegates. What I expected when I wrote
the letter to Messrs. Dole and others is now happening. Your discomfited
assailants are most bitter against me; and they will, for revenge upon me,
lay to the Bates egg in the South, and to the Seward egg in the North, and
go far toward squeezing me out in the middle with nothing. Can you help
me a little in this matter in your end of the vineyard. I mean this to be
private.
Yours as ever,
A. LINCOLN
1860
SPEECH AT THE COOPER INSTITUTE, NEW YORK FEBRUARY 27, 1860
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 anything
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 an agreed starting-point for
a discussion between Republicans and that wing of the Democracy headed by
Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry: What was the understanding
those fathers had of the question mentioned?
What is the frame of Government under which we live?
The answer must be--the Constitution of the United States. That
Constitution consists of the original, framed in 1787 (and under which
the present Government first went 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
anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government to control as
to slavery in our Federal Territories?
Upon this Senator Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republicans the
negative. This affirmation and denial form an issue, and this issue--this
question is precisely what the text declares our fathers understood
"better than we."
Let us now inquire whether the "thirty-nine," or any of them, 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 Northwestern 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 anything else, properly forbade the
Federal Government to control as to slavery in Federal territory. The
other of the four--James McHenry voted against the prohibition, showing
that, for some cause, he thought it improper to vote for it.
In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the convention was in
session framing it, and while the Northwestern Territory still was
the only Territory owned by the United States, the same question of
prohibiting slavery in the Territory again came before the Congress of the
Confederation; and two more of the "thirty-nine" who afterward signed the
Constitution were in that Congress, and voted on the question. They were
William Blount and William Few; and they both voted for the prohibition
thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from
Federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the Federal
Government to control as to slavery in Federal 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 Northwestern Territory. The bill for this act was reported
by one of the "thirty-nine," Thomas Fitzsimmons, then a member of the
House of Representatives from Pennsylvania. It went through all its stages
without a word of opposition, and 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, Wm. S.
Johnnson, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Thos. Fitzsimmons, William Few,
Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, William Paterson, George Claimer, Richard
Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll, James Madison.
This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from
Federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, properly forbade
Congress to prohibit slavery in the Federal territory; else both their
fidelity to correct principles 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 anything
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 anything 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 Lousiana. 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 properly 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 anything in the Constitution, was
violated by Congress prohibiting slavery in Federal territory; while Mr.
Pinckney, by his vote, 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, two
in 1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 1798, two in 1804, and two in
1819-20--there would be thirty of them. But this would be counting, John
Langdon, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus King, and George Read, each
twice, and Abraham Baldwin three times. The true number of those of the
"thirty-nine" whom I have shown to have acted upon the question which, by
the text, they understood better than we, is twenty-three, leaving sixteen
not shown to have acted upon it in any way.
Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our thirty-nine fathers "who
framed the Government under which we live," who have, upon their official
responsibility and their 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 whole
"thirty-nine"--so acting upon it as to make them guilty of gross political
impropriety and wilful perjury, if, in their understanding, any proper
division between local and Federal authority, or anything in the
Constitution they had made themselves, and sworn to support, forbade the
Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories.
Thus the twenty-one acted; and, as actions speak louder than words, so
actions under such responsibilities 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
anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as
to slavery in Federal territory.
The remaining sixteen of the "thirty-nine," so far as I have discovered,
have left no record of their understanding upon the direct question of
Federal control on 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 tine" 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 anti-slavery 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; whilst 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 "the 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 "life, liberty, or property without due process of law"; while Senator
Douglas and his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the tenth
amendment, providing that "the powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution" "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people."
Now, it so happens that these amendments were framed by the first Congress
which sat under the Constitution--the identical Congress which passed
the act already mentioned, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the
Northwestern Territory. Not only was it the same Congress, but they were
the identical same individual men who, at the same session, and at the
same time within the session, had under consideration, and in progress
toward maturity, these Constitutional amendments, and this act prohibiting
slavery in all the territory the nation then owned. The 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.
The seventy-six members of that Congress, including sixteen of the framers
of the original Constitution, as before stated, were pre-eminently 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 carried 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 really were
inconsistent better than we--better than he who affirms that they are
inconsistent?
It is surely safe to assume that the thirty-nine framers of the original
Constitution, and the seventy-six members of 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 further. I defy any one to show that any living man in the
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.