Lincoln and Slavery--The Issue Becoming More Sharply
Defined--Resistance to the Spread of Slavery--Views Expressed by
Lincoln in 1850--His Mind Made Up--Lincoln as a Party Leader--The
Kansas Struggle--Crossing Swords with Douglas--A Notable Speech by
Lincoln--Advice to Kansas Belligerents--Honor in Politics--Anecdote
of Lincoln and Yates--Contest for the U.S. Senate in
1855--Lincoln's Defeat--Sketched by Members of the Legislature.
At the death of Henry Clay, in June, 1852, Lincoln was invited to
deliver a eulogy on Clay's life and character before the citizens of
Springfield. He complied with the request on the 16th of July. The same
season he made a speech before the Scott Club of Springfield, in reply
to the addresses with which Douglas had opened his extended campaign of
that summer, at Richmond, Virginia. Except on these two occasions,
Lincoln took but little part in politics until the passage of the
Nebraska Bill by Congress in 1854. The enactment of this measure
impelled him to take a firmer stand upon the question of slavery than he
had yet assumed. He had been opposed to the institution on grounds of
sentiment since his boyhood; now he determined to fight it from
principle. Mr. Herndon states that Lincoln really became an anti-slavery
man in 1831, during his visit to New Orleans, where he was deeply
affected by the horrors of the traffic in human beings. On one occasion
he saw a slave, a beautiful mulatto girl, sold at auction. She was felt
over, pinched, and trotted around to show bidders she was sound. Lincoln
walked away from the scene with a feeling of deep abhorrence. He said to
John Hanks, "_If I ever get a chance to hit that institution, John, I'll
hit it hard_!" Again, in the summer of 1841, he was painfully impressed
by a scene witnessed during his journey home from Kentucky, described in
a letter written at the time to the sister of his friend Speed, in which
he says: "A fine example was presented on board the boat for
contemplating the effect of conditions upon human happiness. A man had
purchased twelve negroes in different parts of Kentucky, and was taking
them to a farm in the South. They were chained six and six together; a
small iron clevis was around the left wrist of each, and this was
fastened to the main chain by a shorter one, at a convenient distance
from the others, so that the negroes were strung together like so many
fish upon a trot-line. In this condition they were being separated
forever from the scenes of their childhood, their friends, their fathers
and mothers, brothers and sisters, and many of them from their wives and
children, and going into perpetual slavery."
Judge Gillespie records a conversation which he had with Lincoln in 1850
on the slavery question, remarking by way of introduction that the
subject of slavery was the only one on which he (Lincoln) was apt to
become excited. "I recollect meeting him once at Shelbyville," says
Judge Gillespie, "when he remarked that something must be done or
slavery would overrun the whole country. He said there were about six
hundred thousand non-slaveholding whites in Kentucky to about
thirty-three thousand slaveholders; that in the convention then recently
held it was expected that the delegates would represent these classes
about in proportion to their respective numbers; but when the convention
assembled, there was not a single representative of the non-slaveholding
class; everyone was in the interest of the slaveholders; 'and,' said he,
'the thing is spreading like wildfire over the country. In a few years
we will be ready to accept the institution in Illinois, and the whole
country will adopt it.' I asked him to what he attributed the change
that was going on in public opinion. He said he had recently put that
question to a Kentuckian, who answered by saying, 'You might have any
amount of land, money in your pocket, or bank-stock, and while
travelling around nobody would be any wiser; but if you had a darkey
trudging at your heels, everybody would see him and know that you owned
a slave. It is the most ostentatious way of displaying property in the
world; if a young man goes courting, the only inquiry is as to how many
negroes he owns.' The love for slave property was swallowing up every
other mercenary possession. Its ownership not only betokened the
possession of wealth, but indicated the gentleman of leisure who scorned
labor. These things Mr. Lincoln regarded as highly pernicious to the
thoughtless and giddy young men who were too much inclined to look upon
work as vulgar and ungentlemanly. He was much excited, and said with
great earnestness that this spirit ought to be met, and if possible
checked; that slavery was a great and crying injustice, an enormous
national crime, and we could not expect to escape punishment for it. I
asked him how he would proceed in his efforts to check the spread of
slavery. He confessed he did not see his way clearly; but I think he
made up his mind that from that time he would oppose slavery actively. I
know that Lincoln always contended that no man had any right, other than
what mere brute force gave him, to hold a slave. He used to say it was
singular that the courts would hold that a man never lost his right to
property that had been stolen from him, but that he instantly _lost his
right to himself_ if he was stolen. Lincoln always contended that the
cheapest way of getting rid of slavery was for the nation to buy the
slaves and set them free."
While in Congress, Lincoln had declared himself plainly as opposed to
slavery; and in public speeches not less than private conversations he
had not hesitated to express his convictions on the subject. In 1850 he
said to Major Stuart: "The time will soon come when we must all be
Democrats or Abolitionists. When that time comes, _my mind is made up_.
The slavery question cannot be compromised." The hour had now struck in
which Lincoln was to espouse with his whole heart and soul that cause
for which finally he was to lay down his life. In the language of Mr.
Arnold, "He had bided his time. He had waited until the harvest was
ripe. With unerring sagacity he realized that the triumph of freedom was
at hand. He entered upon the conflict with the deepest conviction that
the perpetuity of the Republic required the extinction of slavery. So,
adopting as his motto, 'A house divided against itself cannot stand,' he
girded himself for the contest. The years from 1854 to 1860 were on his
part years of constant, active, and unwearied effort. His position in
the State of Illinois was central and commanding. He was now to become
the recognized leader of the anti-slavery party in the Northwest, and in
all the Valley of the Mississippi. Lincoln was a practical statesman,
never attempting the impossible, but seeking to do the best thing
practicable under existing circumstances. He knew that prohibition in
the territories would result in no more slave states and no slave
territory. And now, when the repeal of the Missouri Compromise shattered
all parties into fragments, he came forward to build up the Free Soil
party and threw into the conflict all his strength and vigor. The
conviction of his duty was deep and sincere. Hence he pleaded the cause
of liberty with an energy, ability, and power which rapidly gained for
him a national reputation. Conscious of the greatness of his cause,
inspired by a genuine love of liberty, animated and made strong by the
moral sublimity of the conflict, he solemnly announced his determination
to speak for freedom and against slavery until--in his own
words--wherever the Federal Government has power, 'the sun shall shine,
the rain shall fall, and the wind shall blow upon no man who goes forth
to unrequited toil.'"
The absorbing political topic in 1855 was the contest in Kansas, which
proved the battle-ground for the struggle over the introduction of
slavery into the territories north of the line established by the
"Missouri Compromise." Lincoln's views on the subject are defined in a
notable letter to his friend Joshua Speed, a resident of Kentucky. The
following passages show, in Lincoln's own words, where he stood on the
slavery question at this memorable epoch:
SPRINGFIELD, AUGUST 24, 1855.
Dear Speed:--You know what a poor correspondent I am. Ever since I
received your very agreeable letter of the twenty-second of May, I
have been intending to write you in answer to it. You suggest that
in political action now, you and I would differ. You know I dislike
slavery, and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it. So far,
there is no cause of difference. But you say that sooner than yield
your legal right to the slave, especially at the bidding of those
who are not themselves interested, you would see the Union
dissolved. I am not aware that any one is bidding you yield that
right--very certainly I am not. I leave the matter entirely to
yourself. I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations under
the Constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see
the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to
their stripes and unrequited toil; but I bite my lip and keep
quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip on a
steamboat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well
do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio, there were on
board ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That
sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it
every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave border. It is not
fair for you to assume that I have no interest in a thing which
has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable.
You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the
people of the North do crucify their feelings in order to maintain
their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union.
I do oppose the extension of slavery, because my judgment and
feelings so prompt me; and I am under no obligations to the
contrary. If for this you and I must differ, differ we must. You
say, if you were President you would send an army and hang the
leaders of the Missouri outrages upon the Kansas elections; still,
if Kansas fairly votes herself a slave State, she must be admitted,
or the Union must be dissolved. But how if she votes herself a
slave State unfairly--that is, by the very means for which you
would hang men? Must she still be admitted, or the Union dissolved?
That will be the phase of the question when it first becomes a
practical one. In your assumption that there may be a fair decision
of the slavery question in Kansas, I plainly see you and I would
differ about the Nebraska law. I look upon that enactment not as a
law but a violence from the beginning. It was conceived in
violence, passed in violence, is maintained in violence, and is
being executed in violence. I say it was conceived in violence,
because the destruction of the Missouri Compromise under the
Constitution was nothing less than violence. It was passed in
violence, because it could not have passed at all but for the votes
of many members in violent disregard of the known will of their
constituents. It is maintained in violence, because the elections
since clearly demand its repeal; and the demand is openly
disregarded. That Kansas will form a slave constitution, and with
it will ask to be admitted into the Union, I take to be already a
settled question, and so settled by the very means you so pointedly
condemn. By every principle of law ever held by any court, North or
South, every negro taken to Kansas is free; yet in utter disregard
of this--in the spirit of violence merely--that beautiful
Legislature gravely passes a law to hang any man who shall venture
to inform a negro of his legal rights. This is the substance and
real object of the law. If, like Haman, they should hang upon the
gallows of their own building, I shall not be among the mourners
for their fate. In my humble sphere I shall advocate the
restoration of the Missouri Compromise so long as Kansas remains a
Territory; and, when, by all these foul means, it seeks to come
into the Union as a slave State, I shall oppose it.... You inquire
where I now stand. That is a disputed point. I think I am a Whig;
but others say there are no Whigs, and that I am an Abolitionist.
When I was in Washington I voted for the Wilmot Proviso as good as
forty times, and I never heard of any attempt to unwhig me for
that. I now do no more than oppose the extension of slavery. I am
not a Know-Nothing--that is certain. How could I be? How can anyone
who abhors the oppression of the negroes be in favor of degrading
classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me
to be pretty rapid. As a nation we began by declaring that 'all men
are created equal.' We now practically read it 'all men are created
equal, except negroes.' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will
read, 'all men are created equals, except negroes and foreigners
and Catholics.' When it comes to that, I should prefer emigrating
to some other country where they make no pretense of loving
liberty--to Russia for instance, where despotism can be taken pure,
and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.
Your friend forever,
A. LINCOLN.
Lincoln was soon accorded an opportunity to cross swords again with his
former political antagonist, Douglas, who had lately come from his place
in the Senate Chamber at Washington, where he had carried the obnoxious
Nebraska Bill against the utmost efforts of Chase, Seward, Sumner, and
others, to defeat it. As Mr. Arnold narrates the incident,--"When, late
in September, 1854, Douglas returned to Illinois he was received with a
storm of indignation which would have crushed a man of less power and
will. A bold and courageous leader, conscious of his personal power over
his party, he bravely met the storm and sought to allay it. In October,
1854, the State Fair being then in session at Springfield, with a great
crowd of people in attendance from all parts of the State, Douglas went
there and made an elaborate and able speech in defense of the repeal of
the Missouri Compromise. Lincoln was called upon by the opponents of
this repeal to reply, and he did so with a power which he never
surpassed and had never before equalled. All other issues which had
divided the people were as chaff, and were scattered to the winds by the
intense agitation which arose on the question of extending slavery, not
merely into free territory, but into territory which had been declared
free by solemn compact. Lincoln's speech occupied more than three hours
in delivery, and during all that time he held the vast crowd in the
deepest attention."
Mr. Herndon said of this event: "This anti-Nebraska speech of Mr.
Lincoln was the profoundest that he made in his whole life. He felt
burning upon his soul the truths which he uttered, and all present
felt that he was true to his own soul. His feelings once or twice came
near stifling utterance. He quivered with emotion. He attacked the
Nebraska Bill with such warmth and energy that all felt that a man of
strength was its enemy, and that he intended to blast it, if he could,
by strong and manly efforts. He was most successful, and the house
approved his triumph by loud and continued huzzas, while women waved
their white handkerchiefs in token of heartfelt assent. Douglas felt
the sting, and he frequently interrupted Mr. Lincoln; his friends felt
that he was crushed by the powerful argument of his opponent. The
Nebraska Bill was shivered, and, like a tree of the forest, was torn
and rent asunder by hot bolts of truth. At the conclusion of this
speech, every man, woman, and child felt that it was unanswerable." In
speaking of the same occasion, Mr. Lamon says: "Many fine speeches
were made upon the one absorbing topic; but it is no shame to any one
of these orators that their really impressive speeches were but
slightly appreciated or long remembered beside Mr. Lincoln's splendid
and enduring performance,--enduring in the memory of his auditors,
although preserved upon no written or printed page."
A few days after this encounter, Douglas spoke in Peoria, and was
followed by Lincoln with the same crushing arguments that had served him
at the State Fair, and with the same triumphant effect. His Peoria
speech was written out by him and published after its delivery. A few
specimens will show its style and argumentative power.
Argue as you will, and as long as you will, this is the naked front
and aspect of the measure; and in this aspect it could not but
produce agitation. Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's
nature; opposition to it, in his love of justice. These principles
are an eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so
fiercely as slavery extension brings them, shocks, throes, and
convulsions must ceaselessly follow. Repeal the Missouri
Compromise; repeal all compromises; repeal the Declaration of
Independence; repeal all past history,--you still cannot repeal
human nature. It still will be the abundance of man's heart, that
slavery extension is wrong; and out of the abundance of his heart,
his mouth will continue to speak.... When Mr. Pettit, in connection
with his support of the Nebraska Bill, called the Declaration of
Independence 'a self-evident lie,' he only did what consistency and
candor require all other Nebraska men to do. Of the forty-odd
Nebraska Senators who sat present and heard him, no one rebuked
him.... If this had been said among Marion's men, Southerners
though they were, what would have become of the man who said it? If
this had been said to the men who captured Andre, the man who said
it would probably have been hung sooner than Andre was. If it had
been said in old Independence Hall seventy-eight years ago, the
very doorkeeper would have throttled the man, and thrust him into
the street.... Thus we see the plain, unmistakable spirit of that
early age towards slavery was hostility to the principle, and
toleration only by necessity. But now it is to be transformed into
a 'sacred right.' Nebraska brings it forth, places it on the high
road to extension and perpetuity, and with a pat on its back says
to it: 'Go, and God speed you.' Henceforth it is to be the chief
jewel of the nation, the very figurehead of the ship of state.
Little by little, but steadily as man's march to the grave, we have
been giving the old for the new faith. Nearly eighty years ago we
began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from
that beginning we have run down to that other declaration, 'that
for _some_ men to enslave others is a sacred right of
self-government.' ... In our greedy chase to make profit of the
negro, let us beware lest we cancel and tear to pieces even the
white man's charter of freedom.... If all earthly power were given
me, I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My
first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to
Liberia--to their own native land. But, if they were all landed
there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and
there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough to carry
them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and
keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this
betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery at
any rate; yet the point is not clear enough for me to denounce
people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and
socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and,
if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white
people will not. A universal feeling, whether well or ill founded,
cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot then make them equals. It
does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be
adopted; but, for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to
judge our brethren of the South.
Our Republican robe is soiled--trailed in the dust. Let us repurify
it. Let us turn and wash it white, in the spirit, if not the blood,
of the Revolution. Let us turn slavery from its claims of 'moral
right,' back upon its existing legal rights and its arguments of
'necessity.' Let us return it to the position our fathers gave it,
and there let it rest in peace. Let us re-adopt the Declaration of
Independence, and with it the practices and policy which harmonize
with it. Let North and South--let all Americans--let all lovers of
liberty everywhere--join in the great and good work. If we do
this, we shall not only have saved the Union, but we shall have so
saved it as to make and to keep it forever worthy of the saving. We
shall have so saved it that the succeeding millions of free and
happy people, the world over, shall rise up and call us blessed to
the latest generations.
It was in one of these speeches that Lincoln's power of repartee was
admirably illustrated by a most laughable retort made by him to Douglas.
Mr. Ralph E. Hoyt, who was present, says: "In the course of his speech,
Mr. Douglas had said, 'The Whigs are all dead.' For some time before
speaking, Lincoln sat on the platform with only his homely face visible
to the audience above the high desk before him. On being introduced, he
arose from his chair and proceeded to straighten himself up. For a few
seconds I wondered when and where his head would cease its ascent; but
at last it did stop, and 'Honest Old Abe' stood before us. He commenced,
'Fellow-citizens: My friend, Mr. Douglas, made the startling
announcement to-day that the Whigs are all dead. If this be so,
fellow-citizens, you will now experience the novelty of hearing a speech
from a dead man; and I suppose you might properly say, in the language
of the old hymn:
"Hark! from the tombs a doleful sound!"'
This set the audience fairly wild with delight, and at once brought them
into full confidence with the speaker."
Hating slavery though he did, Lincoln was steadily opposed to all forms
of unlawful or violent opposition to it. At about the time of which we
are speaking a party of Abolitionists in Illinois had become so excited
over the Kansas struggle that they were determined to go to the aid of
the Free-State men in that territory. As soon as Lincoln learned of this
project, he opposed it strongly. When they spoke to him of "Liberty,
Justice, and God's higher law," he replied in this temperate and
judicious strain:
Friends, you are in the minority--in a sad minority; and you can't hope
to succeed, reasoning from all human experience. You would rebel against
the Government, and redden your hands in the blood of your countrymen.
If you have the majority, as some of you say you have, you can succeed
with the ballot, throwing away the bullet. You can peaceably, then,
redeem the Government and preserve the liberties of mankind, through
your votes and voice and moral influence. _Let there be peace_. In a
democracy, where the majority rule by the ballot through the forms of
law, these physical rebellions and bloody resistances are radically
wrong, unconstitutional, and are treason. Better bear the ills you have
than fly to those you know not of. Our own Declaration of Independence
says that governments long established should not be resisted for
trivial causes. Revolutionize through the ballot-box, and restore the
Government once more to the affection and hearts of men, by making it
express, as it was intended to do, the highest spirit of justice and
liberty. Your attempt, if there be such, to resist the laws of Kansas by
force, will be criminal and wicked; and all your feeble attempts will be
follies, and end in bringing sorrow on your heads, and ruin the cause
you would freely die to preserve.
No doubt was felt of Lincoln's sympathies; indeed, he is known to have
contributed money to the Free-State cause. But it is noticeable that in
this exciting episode he showed the same coolness, wisdom, moderation,
love of law and order that so strongly characterized his conduct in the
stormier period of the Civil War, and without which it is doubtful if he
would have been able to save the nation.
Some interesting recollections of the events of this stirring period,
and of Lincoln's part in them, are given by Mr. Paul Selby, for a long
time editor of the "State Journal" at Springfield, and one of
Lincoln's old-time friends and political associates. "While Abraham
Lincoln had the reputation of being inspired by an almost unbounded
ambition," says Mr. Selby, "it was of that generous quality which
characterized his other attributes, and often led him voluntarily to
restrain its gratification in deference to the conflicting aspirations
of his friends. All remember his magnanimity towards Col. Edward D.
Baker, when the latter was elected to Congress from the Springfield
District in 1844, and the frankness with which he informed Baker of
his own desire to be a candidate in 1846--when for the only time in
his life, he was elected to that body. In 1852, Richard Yates of
Jacksonville, then recognized as one of the rising young orators and
statesmen of the West, was elected to Congress for the second time
from the Springfield District. It was during the term following this
election that the Kansas-Nebraska issue was precipitated upon the
country by Senator Douglas, in the introduction of his bill for the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise. Yates, in obedience to his
impulses, which were always on the side of freedom, took strong ground
against the measure--notwithstanding the fact that a majority of his
constituents, though originally Whigs, were strongly conservative, as
was generally the case with people who were largely of Kentucky and
Tennessee origin. In 1854 the Whig party, which had been divided on
the Kansas-Nebraska question, began to manifest symptoms of
disintegration; while the Republican party, though not yet known by
that name, began to take form. At this time I was publishing a paper
at Jacksonville, Yates's home; and although from the date of my
connection with it, in 1852, it had not been a political paper, the
introduction of a new issue soon led me to take decided ground on the
side of free territory. Lincoln at once sprang into prominence as one
of the boldest, most vigorous and eloquent opponents of Mr. Douglas's
measure, which was construed as a scheme to secure the admission of
slavery into all the new territories of the United States. At that
time Lincoln's election to a seat in Congress would probably have been
very grateful to his ambition, as well as acceptable in a pecuniary
point of view; and his prominence and ability had already attracted
the eyes of the whole State toward him in a special degree. Having
occasion to visit Springfield one day while the subject of the
selection of a candidate was under consideration among the opponents
of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, I encountered Mr. Lincoln on the street.
As we walked along, the subject of the choice of a candidate for
Congress to succeed Yates came up, when I stated that many of the
old-line Whigs and anti-Nebraska men in the western part of the
district were looking to him as an available leader. While he seemed
gratified by the compliment, he said: 'No; Yates has been a true and
faithful Representative, and should be returned.' Yates was
renominated; and although he ran ahead of his ticket, yet so far had
the disorganization of the Whig party then progressed, and so strong a
foothold had the pro-slavery sentiment obtained in the district, that
he was defeated by Major Thomas L. Harris, of Petersburg, whom he had
defeated when he first entered the field as a candidate four years
before. While it is scarcely probable that Lincoln, if he had been a
candidate, could have changed the result, yet the prize was one which
he would then have considered worth contending for; and if the
nomination could have been tendered him without doing injustice to his
friend, he would undoubtedly have accepted it gladly and thrown all
the earnestness and ability which he possessed into the contest. This
instance only illustrates a feature of his character which has so
often been recognized and commented upon--his generosity toward those
among his political friends who might be regarded as occupying the
position of rivals."
In 1854, during Lincoln's absence from Springfield, he was nominated as
a candidate for the State Legislature. It was in one of Lincoln's
periods of profound depression, and it was with the greatest difficulty
that he could be persuaded to accept the nomination. "I went to see
him," says one of his close political friends, Mr. William Jayne, "in
order to get his consent to run. This was at his house. He was then the
saddest man I ever saw--the gloomiest. He walked up and down the floor,
almost crying; and to all my persuasions to let his name stand in the
paper, he said, 'No, I can't. You don't know all. I say you don't begin
to know one-half; and that's enough.'" His name, however, was allowed to
stand, and he was elected by about 600 majority. But Lincoln was then
extremely desirous of succeeding General James Shields, whose term in
the United States Senate was to expire the following March. The Senate
Chamber had long been the goal of his ambition. He summed up his
feelings in a letter to Hon. N.B. Judd, some years after, saying, "I
would rather have a full term in the United States Senate than the
Presidency." He therefore resigned his seat in the Legislature--the fact
that a majority in both houses was opposed to the Nebraska Bill allowing
him to do so without injury to his party--and became a candidate for the
Senate. But the act was futile. When the Legislature met, in February,
1855, to make choice of a Senator, a clique of anti-Nebraska Democrats
held out so firmly against the nomination of Lincoln that there was
danger of the Whigs leaving their candidate altogether. In this dilemma
Lincoln was consulted. Mr. Lamon thus describes the incident: "Lincoln
said, unhesitatingly, 'You ought to drop me and go for Trumbull; that is
the only way you can defeat Matteson.' Judge Logan came up about that
time, and insisted on running Lincoln still; but the latter said, 'If
you do, you will lose both Trumbull and myself; and I think the cause in
this case is to be preferred to men.' We adopted his suggestion, and
took up Trumbull and elected him, although it grieved us to the heart to
give up Lincoln." Mr. Parks, a member of the Legislature at this time,
and one of Lincoln's intimate friends, said: "Mr. Lincoln was very much
disappointed, for I think it was the height of his ambition to get into
the United States Senate. Yet he manifested no bitterness toward Mr.
Judd or the other anti-Nebraska Democrats by whom politically he was
beaten, but evidently thought their motives were right. He told me
several times afterwards that the election of Trumbull was the best
thing that could have happened."
Hon. Elijah M. Haines, ex-Speaker of the Illinois Legislature, a
resident of the State for over half a century, and one of Lincoln's
early friends, was a member of the Legislature during the Senatorial
struggle just referred to. His familiarity with all its incidents lends
value to his distinct and vivid recollections. "Abraham Lincoln had been
elected a member of the House on the Fusion ticket, with Judge Stephen
T. Logan, for the district composed of Sangamon County," writes Mr.
Haines. "But it being settled that the Fusion party--which was an
anti-Douglas combination, including Whigs, Free-Soilers, Know-Nothings,
etc.--would have a majority of the two houses on ballot, Mr. Lincoln was
induced to become a candidate for United States Senator, for the support
of that party. He therefore did not qualify as a member. Although Mr.
Lincoln never acquired the reputation of being an office-seeker, yet it
happened frequently that his name would be mentioned in connection with
some important position. He became quite early in life one of the
prominent leaders of the Whig party of the State, and for a long time,
in connection with a few devoted associates, led the forlorn hope of
that party. During a period of about twenty years there was seldom more
than one Whig member in the Illinois delegation of Congressmen. The
Sangamon district, in which Mr. Lincoln lived, was always sure to elect
a Whig member when the party was united; but it contained quite a number
of aspiring Whig orators, and there was a kind of understanding between
them that no one who attained the position of Representative in Congress
should hold it longer than one term; that he would then give way for the
next favorite. Mr. Lincoln had held the position once, and its return to
him was far in the future. The Fusion triumph in the Legislature was
considered by the Whig element as a success, in which they acknowledged
great obligation to Mr. Lincoln. That element in the Fusion party
therefore urged his claims as the successor of General Shields. His old
associate and tried friend in the Whig cause, Judge Logan, became the
champion of his interests in the House of Representatives. I was present
and saw something of Mr. Lincoln during the early part of the session,
before the vote for Senator was taken. He was around among the members
much of the time. His manner was agreeable and unassuming; he was not
forward in pressing his case upon the attention of members, yet before
the interview would come to a close some allusion to the Senatorship
would generally occur, when he would respond in some such way as this:
'Gentlemen, that is rather a delicate subject for me to talk upon; but I
must confess that I would be glad of your support for the office, if you
shall conclude that I am the proper person for it.' When he had
finished, he would generally take occasion to withdraw before any
discussion on the subject arose. When the election of Senator occurred,
in February, Lincoln received 45 votes--the highest number of any of
the candidates, and within six votes of enough to secure his election.
This was on the first ballot, after which Lincoln's votes declined.
After the ninth ballot, Mr. Lincoln stepped forward--or, as Mr. Richmond
expresses it, _leaned_ forward from his position in the lobby--and
requested the committee to withdraw his name. On the tenth ballot Judge
Trumbull received fifty-one votes and was declared elected." Thus were
Lincoln's political ambitions again frustrated. But their realization
was only delayed for the far grander triumph that was so soon to come,
although no man then foresaw its coming.