long continued, as to lead some foreign nations to shape their action as
if they supposed the early destruction of our National Union was
probable. While this, on discovery, gave the Executive some concern, he
is now happy to say that the sovereignty and rights of the United States
are now everywhere practically respected by foreign powers, and a
general sympathy with the country is manifested throughout the world.
... It is now recommended that you give the legal means for making this
contest a short and decisive one; that you place at the control of the
government for the work, at least four hundred thousand men, and
$400,000,000. That number of men is about one-tenth of those of proper
ages within the regions where, apparently, all are willing to engage;
and the sum is less than a twenty-third part of the money value owned by
the men who seem ready to devote the whole.
... A right result at this time, will be worth more to the world than
ten times the men and ten times the money. The evidences reaching us
from the country leaves no doubt that the material for the work is
abundant, and that it needs only the hand of legislation to give it
legal sanction, and the hand of the Executive to give it practical shape
and efficiency. One of the greatest perplexities of the government is to
avoid receiving troops faster than it can provide for them. In a word,
the people will save their government, if the government itself will do
its part only indifferently well.
It might seem at first thought to be of little difference whether the
present movement at the South be called _secession_ or _rebellion_. The
movers, however, well understand the difference. At the beginning they
knew they could never raise their treason to any respectable magnitude
by any name which implies violation of law. They knew their people
possessed as much of moral sense, as much of devotion to law and order,
and as much pride in and reverence for the history and government of
their common country as any other civilized and patriotic people. They
knew they could make no advancement directly in the teeth of these
strong and noble sentiments. Accordingly, they commenced by an insidious
debauching of the public mind. They invented an ingenious sophism which,
if conceded, was followed by perfectly logical steps, through all the
incidents, to the complete destruction of the Union. The sophism itself
is that any State of the Union may consistently with the national
Constitution, and therefore lawfully and peacefully, withdraw from the
Union without the consent of the Union or of any other State. The little
disguise that the supposed right is to be exercised only for just
cause, themselves to be the sole judges of its justice, is too thin to
merit any notice.
With rebellion thus _sugar-coated_ they have been drugging the public
mind of their section for more than thirty years, and until at length
they have brought many good men to a willingness to take up arms against
the government the day after some assemblage of men have enacted the
farcical pretence of taking their State out of the Union, who could have
been brought to no such thing the day before.
This sophism derives much, perhaps the whole of its currency from the
assumption that there is some omnipotent and sacred supremacy pertaining
to a State--to each State of our Federal Union. Our States have neither
more nor less power than that reserved to them in the Union by the
Constitution, no one of them ever having been a State out of the Union.
The original ones passed into the Union even before they cast off their
British colonial dependence, and the new ones each came into the Union
directly from a condition of dependence, excepting Texas. And even Texas
in its temporary independence was never designated a State. The new ones
only took the designation of States on coming into the Union, while that
name was first adopted for the old ones in and by the Declaration of
Independence. Therein the "United Colonies" were declared to be "free
and independent States;" but even then the object plainly was, not to
declare their independence of one another or of the Union, but directly
the contrary, as their mutual pledges and their mutual action before, at
the time, and afterward abundantly show. The express plighting of faith
by each and all of the original thirteen in the Articles of
Confederation two years later, that the Union shall be perpetual, is
most conclusive. Having never been States, either in substance or name,
outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of "State-Rights,"
asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself? Much is
said about the "sovereignty" of the States; but the word is not in the
National Constitution, nor, as is believed, in any of the State
constitutions. What is _sovereignty_ in the political sense of the term?
Would it be far wrong to define it "a political community without a
political superior?" Tested by this, no one of our States, except Texas,
ever was a sovereignty. And even Texas gave up the character on coming
into the Union, by which act she acknowledged the Constitution of the
United States, and the laws and treaties of the United States made in
pursuance of the Constitution, to be for her the supreme law of the
land. 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 or 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 their old dependence for them, and made them States,
such as they are. Not one of them ever had a State constitution
independent of the Union. Of course it is not forgotten that all the new
States framed their constitutions before they entered the
Union,--nevertheless, dependent upon and preparatory to coming into the
Union.
Unquestionably the States have the powers and the rights reserved to
them in and by the National Constitution; but among these, surely, are
not included all conceivable powers, however mischievous or destructive;
but, at most, such only as were known in the world at the time, as
governmental powers; and, certainly, a power to destroy the government
itself had never been known as a governmental--as a merely
administrative power. This relative matter of National power and States
rights, as a principle, is no other than the principle of generality and
locality. Whatever concerns the whole world should be confided to the
whole--to the General Government; while whatever concerns only the
State should be left exclusively to the State. This is all there is of
original principle about it.... What is now combated, is the position
that secession is consistent with the Constitution--is lawful and
peaceful. It is not contended that there is any express law for it; and
nothing should ever be implied as law which leads to unjust or absurd
consequences.
The nation purchased with money the countries out of which several of
these States were formed; is it just that they shall go off without
leave and without refunding? The nation paid very large sums (in the
aggregate, I believe, nearly a hundred millions) to relieve Florida of
the aboriginal tribes; is it just that she shall now be off without
consent, or without making any return? The nation is now in debt for
money applied to the benefit of these so-called seceding States in
common with the rest; is it just that the creditors shall go unpaid, or
the remaining States pay the whole?... Again, if one State may secede,
so may another; and when all shall have seceded, none is left to pay the
debts. Is this quite just to the creditors? Did we notify them of this
sage view of ours when we borrowed their money? If we now recognize this
doctrine by allowing the seceders to go in peace, it is difficult to see
what we can do if others choose to go, or to extort terms upon which
they will promise to remain.
The seceders insist that our Constitution admits of secession. They have
assumed to make a national constitution of their own, in which, of
necessity, they have either discarded or retained the right of
secession, as they insist it exists in ours. If they have discarded it,
they thereby admit that, on principle, it ought not to be in ours. If
they have retained it, by their own construction of ours, they show that
to be consistent they must secede from one another whenever they shall
find it the easiest way of settling their debts, or effecting any other
or selfish or unjust object. The principle itself is one of
disintegration, and upon which no government can stand.
If all the States save one should assert the power to drive that one out
of the Union, it is presumed the whole class of seceder politicians
would at once deny the power, and denounce the act as the greatest
outrage upon State rights. But suppose that precisely the same act,
instead of being called "driving the one out," should be called "the
seceding of the others from that one," it would be exactly what the
seceders claim to do; unless, indeed, they make the point that the one,
because it is a minority, may rightfully do what the others, because
they are a majority, may not rightfully do....
It may be affirmed without extravagance that the free institutions we
enjoy have developed the powers and improved the condition of our whole
people, beyond any example in the world. Of this we now have a striking
and an impressive illustration. So large an army as the government has
now on foot was never before known, without a soldier in it but who has
taken his place there of his own free choice. But more than this, there
are many single regiments, whose members, one and another, possess full
practical knowledge of all the arts, sciences, and professions, and
whatever else, whether useful or elegant, is known in the world; and
there is scarcely one from which there could not be selected a
President, a cabinet, a congress, and perhaps a court, abundantly
competent to administer the government itself. Nor do I say that this is
not true also in the army of our late friends, now adversaries in this
contest; but if it is, so much the better reason why the government
which has conferred such benefits on both them and us should not be
broken up. Whoever in any section proposes to abandon such a government,
would do well to consider in deference to what principle it is that he
does it; what better he is likely to get in its stead; whether the
substitute will give, or be intended to give, so much of good to the
people? There are some foreshadowings on this subject. Our adversaries
have adopted some declarations of independence in which, unlike the good
old one penned by Jefferson, they omit the words, "all men are created
equal." Why? They have adopted a temporary national constitution, in
the preamble of which, unlike our good old one signed by Washington,
they omit "We, the people," and substitute "We, the deputies of the
sovereign and independent States." Why? Why this deliberate pressing out
of view the rights of men and the authority of the people?
This is essentially a people's contest. On the side of the Union it is a
struggle for maintaining in the world that form and substance of
government whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men,--to
lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of
laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a fair
chance in the race of life. Yielding to partial and temporary departures
from necessity, this is the leading object of the government for the
existence of which we contend.
I am most happy to believe that the plain people understand and
appreciate this. It is worthy of note that while in this, the
government's hour of trial, large numbers of those in the army and navy
who have been favoured with the offices have resigned and proved false
to the hand which had pampered them, not one common soldier or common
sailor is known to have deserted his flag.
Our popular government has often been called an experiment. Two points
in it our people have already settled,--the successful establishing and
the successful administering of it. One still remains,--its successful
maintenance against a formidable internal attempt to overthrow it. It is
now for them to demonstrate to the world that those who can fairly carry
an election can also suppress a rebellion; that ballots are the rightful
and peaceful successors of bullets; and that when ballots have fairly
and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to
bullets; that there can be no successful appeal, except to ballots
themselves, at succeeding elections. Such will be a great lesson of
peace; teaching men that what they cannot take by an election, neither
can they take by a war; teaching all the folly of being the beginners of
a war.
_From his Message to Congress at its Regular Session. December 3, 1861_
Fellow-citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives, In the midst
of unprecedented political troubles, we have cause of great gratitude to
God for unusual good health and abundant harvests.
You will not be surprised to learn that in the peculiar exigencies of
the times, our intercourse with foreign nations has been attended with
profound solicitude, chiefly turning upon our own domestic affairs.
A disloyal portion of the American people have, during the whole year,
been engaged in an attempt to divide and destroy the Union. A nation
which endures factious domestic division is exposed to disrespect
abroad; and one party, if not both, is sure, sooner or later, to invoke
foreign intervention. Nations thus tempted to interfere are not always
able to resist the counsels of seeming expediency and ungenerous
ambition, although measures adopted under such influences seldom fail to
be injurious and unfortunate to those adopting them.
The disloyal citizens of the United States who have offered the ruin of
our country in return for the aid and comfort which they have invoked
abroad, have received less patronage and encouragement than they
probably expected. If it were just to suppose, as the insurgents have
seemed to assume, that foreign nations in this case, discarding all
moral, social, and treaty obligations, would act solely and selfishly
for the most speedy restoration of commerce, including especially the
acquisition of cotton, those nations appear as yet not to have seen
their way to their object more directly or clearly through the
destruction than through the preservation of the Union. If we could dare
to believe that foreign nations are actuated by no higher principle than
this, I am quite sure a sound argument could be made to show them that
they can reach their aim more readily and easily by aiding to crush
this rebellion than by giving encouragement to it.
The principal lever relied on by the insurgents for exciting foreign
nations to hostility against us, as already intimated, is the
embarrassment of commerce. Those nations, however, not improbably saw
from the first that it was the Union which made as well our foreign as
our domestic commerce. They can scarcely have failed to perceive that
the effort for disunion produces the existing difficulty; and that one
strong nation promises a more durable peace and a more extensive,
valuable, and reliable commerce than can the same nation broken into
hostile fragments.
* * * * *
It continues to develop that the insurrection is largely, if not
exclusively, a war upon the first principle of popular government,--the
rights of the people. Conclusive evidence of this is found in the most
grave and maturely considered public documents, as well as in the
general tone of the insurgents. In those documents we find the
abridgment of the existing right of suffrage, and the denial to the
people of all right to participate in the selection of public officers,
except the legislative, boldly advocated, with laboured arguments to
prove that large control of the people in government is the source of
all political evil. Monarchy itself is sometimes hinted at, as a
possible refuge from the power of the people.
In my present position, I could scarcely be justified were I to omit
raising a warning voice against this approach of returning despotism.
It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made
in favour of popular institutions; but there is one point, with its
connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief
attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with,
if not above, labour, in the structure of government. It is assumed that
labour is available only in connection with capital; that nobody
labours, unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow, by the use of
it, induces him to labour. This assumed, it is next considered whether
it is best that capital shall hire labourers, and thus induce them to
work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without
their consent. Having proceeded thus far, it is naturally concluded that
all labourers are either hired labourers, or what we call slaves. And
further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired labourer is fixed in
that condition for life.
Now, there is no such relation between capital and labour as assumed,
nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the
condition of a hired labourer. Both these assumptions are false, and all
inferences from them are groundless.
Labour is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit
of labour, and could never have existed if labour had not first existed.
Labour is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher
consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection
as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always
will be, a relation between labour and capital, producing mutual
benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labour of the
community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that
few avoid labour themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another
few to labour for them. A large majority belong to neither
class,--neither work for others, nor have others working for them. In
most of the Southern States, a majority of the whole people, of all
colours, are neither slaves nor masters; while in the Northern, a
majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men with their families--wives,
sons, and daughters--work for themselves, on their farms, in their
houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and
asking no favours of capital on the one hand, nor of hired labourers or
slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of
persons mingle their own labour with capital--that is, they labour with
their own hands, and also buy or hire others to labour for them; but
this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is
disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.
Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such
thing as the free, hired labourer being fixed to that condition for
life. Many independent men, everywhere in these States, a few years back
in their lives were hired labourers. The prudent, penniless beginner in
the world labours for wages a while, saves a surplus with which to buy
tools or land for himself, then labours on his own account another
while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the
just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all,
gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of
condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those
who toil up from poverty, none less inclined to take or touch aught
which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a
political power which they already possess, and which, if surrendered,
will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as
they, and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them, till all of
liberty shall be lost.
_Letter to General G.B. McClellan. Washington. February 3, 1862_
My dear Sir, You and I have distinct and different plans for a movement
of the Army of the Potomac--yours to be down the Chesapeake, up the
Rappahannock to Urbana and across land to the terminus of the railroad
on the York River; mine to move directly to a point on the railroad
southwest of Manassas.
If you will give me satisfactory answers to the following questions, I
shall gladly yield my plan to yours.
_First._ Does not your plan involve a greatly larger expenditure of time
and money than mine?
_Second._ Wherein is a victory more certain by your plan than mine?
_Third._ Wherein is a victory more valuable by your plan than mine?
_Fourth._ In fact, would it not be less valuable in this, that it would
break no great line of the enemy's communications, while mine would?
_Fifth._ In case of disaster, would not a retreat be more difficult by
your plan than mine?
I have just assisted the Secretary of War in framing part of a despatch
to you, relating to army corps, which despatch of course will have
reached you long before this will.
I wish to say a few words to you privately on this subject. I ordered
the army corps organization, not only on the unanimous opinion of the
twelve generals whom you had selected and assigned as generals of
division, but also on the unanimous opinion of every _military man_ I
could get an opinion from (and every modern military book), yourself
only excepted. Of course I did not on my own judgment pretend to
understand the subject. I now think it indispensable for you to know how
your struggle against it is received in quarters which we cannot
entirely disregard. It is looked upon as merely an effort to pamper one
or two pets and to persecute and degrade their supposed rivals. I have
had no word from Sumner, Heintzelman, or Keyes. The commanders of these
corps are of course the three highest officers with you, but I am
constantly told that you have no consultation or communication with
them,--that you consult and communicate with nobody but General Fitz
John Porter, and perhaps General Franklin. I do not say these complaints
are true or just, but at all events it is proper you should know of
their existence. Do the commanders of corps disobey your orders in
anything?
... Are you strong enough--are you strong enough, even with my help--to
set your foot upon the necks of Sumner, Heintzelman, and Keyes, all at
once? This is a practical and a very serious question for you.
_Lincoln's Proclamation revoking General Hunter's Order setting the
Slaves free. May 19, 1862_
... General Hunter nor any other commander or person has been authorized
by the Government of the United States to make proclamation declaring
the slaves of any State free, and that the supposed proclamation now in
question, whether genuine or false, is altogether void so far as
respects such declaration.... On the sixth day of March last, by a
special Message, I recommended to Congress the adoption of a joint
resolution, to be substantially as follows:--_Resolved, That the United
States ought to co-operate with any State which may adopt a gradual
abolishment of slavery, giving to such State earnest expression to
compensate for its inconveniences, public and private, produced by such
change of system_.
The resolution in the language above quoted was adopted by large
majorities in both branches of Congress, and now stands an authentic,
definite, and solemn proposal of the nation to the States and people
most immediately interested in the subject-matter. To the people of
those States I now earnestly appeal. I do not argue--I beseech you to
make arguments for yourselves. You cannot, if you would, be blind to the
signs of the times. I beg of you a calm and enlarged consideration of
them, ranging, if it may be, far above personal and partisan politics.
The proposal makes common cause for a common object, casting no
reproaches upon any. It acts not the Pharisee. The change it
contemplates would come gently as the dews of heaven, not rending or
wrecking anything. Will you not embrace it? So much good has not been
done by one effort in all past time as in the providence of God it is
now your high privilege to do. May the vast future not have to lament
that you have neglected it.