Produced by David Widger
THE PAPERS AND WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN
VOLUME FIVE
CONSTITUTIONAL EDITION
By Abraham Lincoln
Edited by Arthur Brooks Lapsley
THE WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, Volume Five, 1858-1862
TO SYDNEY SPRING, GRAYVILLE, ILL.
SPRINGFIELD, June 19, 1858.
SYDNEY SPRING, Esq.
MY DEAR SIR:--Your letter introducing Mr. Faree was duly received. There
was no opening to nominate him for Superintendent of Public Instruction,
but through him Egypt made a most valuable contribution to the convention.
I think it may be fairly said that he came off the lion of the day--or
rather of the night. Can you not elect him to the Legislature? It seems to
me he would be hard to beat. What objection could be made to him? What is
your Senator Martin saying and doing? What is Webb about?
Please write me. Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO H. C. WHITNEY.
SPRINGFIELD, June 24, 1858
H. C. WHITNEY, ESQ.
DEAR SIR:--Your letter enclosing the attack of the Times upon me was
received this morning. Give yourself no concern about my voting against
the supplies. Unless you are without faith that a lie can be successfully
contradicted, there is not a word of truth in the charge, and I am just
considering a little as to the best shape to put a contradiction in. Show
this to whomever you please, but do not publish it in the paper.
Your friend as ever,
A. LINCOLN.
TO J. W. SOMERS.
SPRINGFIELD, June 25, 1858.
JAMES W. SOMERS, Esq.
MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 22nd, inclosing a draft of two hundred dollars,
was duly received. I have paid it on the judgment, and herewith you
have the receipt. I do not wish to say anything as to who shall be the
Republican candidate for the Legislature in your district, further than
that I have full confidence in Dr. Hull. Have you ever got in the way of
consulting with McKinley in political matters? He is true as steel, and
his judgment is very good. The last I heard from him, he rather thought
Weldon, of De Witt, was our best timber for representative, all things
considered. But you there must settle it among yourselves. It may well
puzzle older heads than yours to understand how, as the Dred Scott
decision holds, Congress can authorize a Territorial Legislature to do
everything else, and cannot authorize them to prohibit slavery. That is
one of the things the court can decide, but can never give an intelligible
reason for.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO A. CAMPBELL.
SPRINGFIELD, June 28, 1858.
A. CAMPBELL, Esq.
MY DEAR SIR:--In 1856 you gave me authority to draw on you for any sum not
exceeding five hundred dollars. I see clearly that such a privilege would
be more available now than it was then. I am aware that times are tighter
now than they were then. Please write me at all events, and whether you
can now do anything or not I shall continue grateful for the past.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO J. GILLESPIE.
SPRINGFIELD, July 16, 1858.
HON. JOSEPH GILLESPIE.
MY DEAR SIR:--I write this to say that from the specimens of Douglas
Democracy we occasionally see here from Madison, we learn that they are
making very confident calculation of beating you and your friends for the
lower house, in that county. They offer to bet upon it. Billings and Job,
respectively, have been up here, and were each as I learn, talking largely
about it. If they do so, it can only be done by carrying the Fillmore men
of 1856 very differently from what they seem to [be] going in the other
party. Below is the vote of 1856, in your district:
Counties.
Counties. Buchanan. Fremont. Fillmore.
Bond............ 607 153 659
Madison......... 1451 1111 1658
Montgomery...... 992 162 686
---- ---- ----
3050 1426 3003
By this you will see, if you go through the calculation, that if they get
one quarter of the Fillmore votes, and you three quarters, they will beat
you 125 votes. If they get one fifth, and you four fifths, you beat them
179. In Madison, alone, if our friends get 1000 of the Fillmore votes, and
their opponents the remainder, 658, we win by just two votes.
This shows the whole field, on the basis of the election of 1856.
Whether, since then, any Buchanan, or Fremonters, have shifted ground, and
how the majority of new votes will go, you can judge better than I.
Of course you, on the ground, can better determine your line of tactics
than any one off the ground; but it behooves you to be wide awake and
actively working.
Don't neglect it; and write me at your first leisure. Yours as ever,
A. LINCOLN.
TO JOHN MATHERS, JACKSONVILLE, ILL.
SPRINGFIELD, JULY 20, 1858.
JNO. MATHERS, Esq.
MY DEAR SIR:--Your kind and interesting letter of the 19th was duly
received. Your suggestions as to placing one's self on the offensive
rather than the defensive are certainly correct. That is a point which I
shall not disregard. I spoke here on Saturday night. The speech, not very
well reported, appears in the State journal of this morning. You doubtless
will see it; and I hope that you will perceive in it that I am already
improving. I would mail you a copy now, but have not one [at] hand. I
thank you for your letter and shall be pleased to hear from you again.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO JOSEPH GILLESPIE.
SPRINGFIELD, JULY 25, 1858.
HON. J. GILLESPIE.
MY DEAR SIR:--Your doleful letter of the 8th was received on my return
from Chicago last night. I do hope you are worse scared than hurt, though
you ought to know best. We must not lose the district. We must make a job
of it, and save it. Lay hold of the proper agencies, and secure all the
Americans you can, at once. I do hope, on closer inspection, you will find
they are not half gone. Make a little test. Run down one of the poll-books
of the Edwardsville precinct, and take the first hundred known American
names. Then quietly ascertain how many of them are actually going for
Douglas. I think you will find less than fifty. But even if you find
fifty, make sure of the other fifty, that is, make sure of all you can, at
all events. We will set other agencies to work which shall compensate for
the loss of a good many Americans. Don't fail to check the stampede at
once. Trumbull, I think, will be with you before long.
There is much he cannot do, and some he can. I have reason to hope there
will be other help of an appropriate kind. Write me again.
Yours as ever,
A. LINCOLN.
TO B. C. COOK.
SPRINGFIELD, Aug. 2, 1858.
Hon. B. C. COOK.
MY DEAR SIR:--I have a letter from a very true and intelligent man
insisting that there is a plan on foot in La Salle and Bureau to run
Douglas Republicans for Congress and for the Legislature in those
counties, if they can only get the encouragement of our folks nominating
pretty extreme abolitionists.
It is thought they will do nothing if our folks nominate men who are not
very obnoxious to the charge of abolitionism. Please have your eye upon
this. Signs are looking pretty fair.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO HON. J. M. PALMER.
SPRINGFIELD, Aug. 5, 1858.
HON. J. M. PALMER.
DEAR SIR:--Since we parted last evening no new thought has occurred to
[me] on the subject of which we talked most yesterday.
I have concluded, however, to speak at your town on Tuesday, August 31st,
and have promised to have it so appear in the papers of to-morrow. Judge
Trumbull has not yet reached here.
Yours as ever,
A. LINCOLN.
TO ALEXANDER SYMPSON.
SPRINGFIELD, Aug. 11, 1858.
ALEXANDER SYMPSON, Esq.
DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 6th received. If life and health continue I shall
pretty likely be at Augusta on the 25th.
Things look reasonably well. Will tell you more fully when I see you.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO J. O. CUNNINGHAM.
OTTAWA, August 22, 1858.
J. O. CUNNINGHAM, Esq.
MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 18th, signed as secretary of the Republican
club, is received. In the matter of making speeches I am a good deal
pressed by invitations from almost all quarters, and while I hope to be
at Urbana some time during the canvass, I cannot yet say when. Can you not
see me at Monticello on the 6th of September?
Douglas and I, for the first time this canvass, crossed swords here
yesterday; the fire flew some, and I am glad to know I am yet alive. There
was a vast concourse of people--more than could get near enough to hear.
Yours as ever,
A. LINCOLN.
ON SLAVERY IN A DEMOCRACY.
August??, 1858
As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses
my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the
difference, is no democracy.
A. LINCOLN.
TO B. C. COOK.
SPRINGFIELD, August 2, 1858
HON. B. C. COOK.
MY DEAR SIR:--I have a letter from a very true friend, and intelligent
man, writing that there is a plan on foot in La Salle and Bureau, to run
Douglas Republican for Congress and for the Legislature in those counties,
if they can only get the encouragement of our folks nominating pretty
extreme abolitionists. It is thought they will do nothing if our folks
nominate men who are not very [undecipherable word looks like "obnoxious"]
to the charge of abolitionism. Please have your eye upon this. Signs are
looking pretty fair.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO DR. WILLIAM FITHIAN, DANVILLE, ILL.
BLOOMINGTON, Sept. 3, 1858
DEAR DOCTOR:--Yours of the 1st was received this morning, as also one from
Mr. Harmon, and one from Hiram Beckwith on the same subject. You will see
by the Journal that I have been appointed to speak at Danville on the 22d
of Sept.,--the day after Douglas speaks there. My recent experience
shows that speaking at the same place the next day after D. is the very
thing,--it is, in fact, a concluding speech on him. Please show this
to Messrs. Harmon and Beckwith; and tell them they must excuse me from
writing separate letters to them.
Yours as ever,
A. LINCOLN
P. S.--Give full notice to all surrounding country. A.L.
FRAGMENT OF SPEECH AT PARIS, ILL.,
SEPT. 8, 1858.
Let us inquire what Judge Douglas really invented when he introduced the
Nebraska Bill? He called it Popular Sovereignty. What does that mean?
It means the sovereignty of the people over their own affairs--in other
words, the right of the people to govern themselves. Did Judge Douglas
invent this? Not quite. The idea of popular sovereignty was floating about
several ages before the author of the Nebraska Bill was born--indeed,
before Columbus set foot on this continent. In the year 1776 it took form
in the noble words which you are all familiar with: "We hold these truths
to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," etc. Was not this the
origin of popular sovereignty as applied to the American people? Here we
are told that governments are instituted among men deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed. If that is not popular
sovereignty, then I have no conception of the meaning of words. If Judge
Douglas did not invent this kind of popular sovereignty, let us pursue
the inquiry and find out what kind he did invent. Was it the right of
emigrants to Kansas and Nebraska to govern themselves, and a lot of
"niggers," too, if they wanted them? Clearly this was no invention of his
because General Cass put forth the same doctrine in 1848 in his so called
Nicholson letter, six years before Douglas thought of such a thing. Then
what was it that the "Little Giant" invented? It never occurred to General
Cass to call his discovery by the odd name of popular sovereignty. He had
not the face to say that the right of the people to govern "niggers" was
the right of the people to govern themselves. His notions of the fitness
of things were not moulded to the brazenness of calling the right to put
a hundred "niggers" through under the lash in Nebraska a "sacred" right of
self-government. And here I submit to you was Judge Douglas's discovery,
and the whole of it: He discovered that the right to breed and flog
negroes in Nebraska was popular sovereignty.
SPEECH AT CLINTON, ILLINOIS,
SEPTEMBER 8, 1858.
The questions are sometimes asked "What is all this fuss that is being
made about negroes? What does it amount to? And where will it end?" These
questions imply that those who ask them consider the slavery question a
very insignificant matter they think that it amounts to little or nothing
and that those who agitate it are extremely foolish. Now it must be
admitted that if the great question which has caused so much trouble is
insignificant, we are very foolish to have anything to do with it--if it
is of no importance we had better throw it aside and busy ourselves
with something else. But let us inquire a little into this insignificant
matter, as it is called by some, and see if it is not important enough to
demand the close attention of every well-wisher of the Union. In one of
Douglas's recent speeches, I find a reference to one which was made by
me in Springfield some time ago. The judge makes one quotation from that
speech that requires some little notice from me at this time. I regret
that I have not my Springfield speech before me, but the judge has quoted
one particular part of it so often that I think I can recollect it. It
runs I think as follows:
"We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with
the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery
agitation. Under the operation of that policy that agitation has not only
not ceased but has constantly augmented. In my opinion it will not cease
until a crisis shall have been reached and passed.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government
cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the
Union to be dissolved. I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect
it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the
other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of
it and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it
is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it
forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well
as new, North as well as South."
Judge Douglas makes use of the above quotation, and finds a great deal of
fault with it. He deals unfairly with me, and tries to make the people of
this State believe that I advocated dangerous doctrines in my Springfield
speech. Let us see if that portion of my Springfield speech of which Judge
Douglas complains so bitterly, is as objectionable to others as it is
to him. We are, certainly, far into the fifth year since a policy was
initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end
to slavery agitation. On the fourth day of January, 1854, Judge Douglas
introduced the Kansas-Nebraska bill. He initiated a new policy, and that
policy, so he says, was to put an end to the agitation of the slavery
question. Whether that was his object or not I will not stop to discuss,
but at all events some kind of a policy was initiated; and what has been
the result? Instead of the quiet and good feeling which were promised us
by the self-styled author of Popular Sovereignty, we have had nothing but
ill-feeling and agitation. According to Judge Douglas, the passage of the
Nebraska bill would tranquilize the whole country--there would be no more
slavery agitation in or out of Congress, and the vexed question would be
left entirely to the people of the Territories. Such was the opinion
of Judge Douglas, and such were the opinions of the leading men of the
Democratic Party. Even as late as the spring of 1856 Mr. Buchanan said, a
short time subsequent to his nomination by the Cincinnati convention, that
the territory of Kansas would be tranquil in less than six weeks. Perhaps
he thought so, but Kansas has not been and is not tranquil, and it may be
a long time before she may be so.
We all know how fierce the agitation was in Congress last winter, and
what a narrow escape Kansas had from being admitted into the Union with a
constitution that was detested by ninety-nine hundredths of her citizens.
Did the angry debates which took place at Washington during the last
season of Congress lead you to suppose that the slavery agitation was
settled?
An election was held in Kansas in the month of August, and the
constitution which was submitted to the people was voted down by a large
majority. So Kansas is still out of the Union, and there is a probability
that she will remain out for some time. But Judge Douglas says the slavery
question is settled. He says the bill he introduced into the Senate of
the United States on the 4th day of January, 1854, settled the slavery
question forever! Perhaps he can tell us how that bill settled the slavery
question, for if he is able to settle a question of such great magnitude
he ought to be able to explain the manner in which he does it. He knows
and you know that the question is not settled, and that his ill-timed
experiment to settle it has made it worse than it ever was before.
And now let me say a few words in regard to Douglas's great hobby of negro
equality. He thinks--he says at least--that the Republican party is in
favor of allowing whites and blacks to intermarry, and that a man can't be
a good Republican unless he is willing to elevate black men to office
and to associate with them on terms of perfect equality. He knows that
we advocate no such doctrines as these, but he cares not how much he
misrepresents us if he can gain a few votes by so doing. To show you what
my opinion of negro equality was in times past, and to prove to you that
I stand on that question where I always stood, I will read you a few
extracts from a speech that was made by me in Peoria in 1854. It was made
in reply to one of Judge Douglas's speeches.
(Mr. Lincoln then read a number of extracts which had the ring of the true
metal. We have rarely heard anything with which we have been more pleased.
And the audience after hearing the extracts read, and comparing their
conservative sentiments with those now advocated by Mr. Lincoln, testified
their approval by loud applause. How any reasonable man can hear one
of Mr. Lincoln's speeches without being converted to Republicanism is
something that we can't account for. Ed.)
Slavery, continued Mr. Lincoln, is not a matter of little importance,
it overshadows every other question in which we are interested. It has
divided the Methodist and Presbyterian churches, and has sown discord in
the American Tract Society. The churches have split and the society will
follow their example before long. So it will be seen that slavery is
agitated in the religious as well as in the political world. Judge Douglas
is very much afraid in the triumph that the Republican party will lead
to a general mixture of the white and black races. Perhaps I am wrong
in saying that he is afraid, so I will correct myself by saying that
he pretends to fear that the success of our party will result in the
amalgamation of the blacks and whites. I think I can show plainly, from
documents now before me, that Judge Douglas's fears are groundless. The
census of 1800 tells us that in that year there were over four hundred
thousand mulattoes in the United States. Now let us take what is called
an Abolition State--the Republican, slavery-hating State of New
Hampshire--and see how many mulattoes we can find within her borders.
The number amounts to just one hundred and eighty-four. In the Old
Dominion--in the Democratic and aristocratic State of Virginia--there were
a few more mulattoes than the Census-takers found in New Hampshire. How
many do you suppose there were? Seventy-nine thousand, seven hundred and
seventy-five--twenty-three thousand more than there were in all the
free States! In the slave States there were in 1800, three hundred and
forty-eight thousand mulattoes all of home production; and in the free
States there were less than sixty thousand mulattoes--and a large number
of them were imported from the South.
FRAGMENT OF SPEECH AT EDWARDSVILLE, ILL.,
SEPT. 13, 1858.
I have been requested to give a concise statement of the difference, as
I understand it, between the Democratic and Republican parties, on the
leading issues of the campaign. This question has been put to me by a
gentleman whom I do not know. I do not even know whether he is a friend of
mine or a supporter of Judge Douglas in this contest, nor does that make
any difference. His question is a proper one. Lest I should forget it, I
will give you my answer before proceeding with the line of argument I have
marked out for this discussion.
The difference between the Republican and the Democratic parties on the
leading issues of this contest, as I understand it, is that the former
consider slavery a moral, social and political wrong, while the latter
do not consider it either a moral, a social or a political wrong; and the
action of each, as respects the growth of the country and the expansion of
our population, is squared to meet these views. I will not affirm that the
Democratic party consider slavery morally, socially and politically right,
though their tendency to that view has, in my opinion, been constant and
unmistakable for the past five years. I prefer to take, as the accepted
maxim of the party, the idea put forth by Judge Douglas, that he "don't
care whether slavery is voted down or voted up." I am quite willing to
believe that many Democrats would prefer that slavery should be always
voted down, and I know that some prefer that it be always voted up; but
I have a right to insist that their action, especially if it be their
constant action, shall determine their ideas and preferences on this
subject. Every measure of the Democratic party of late years, bearing
directly or indirectly on the slavery question, has corresponded with this
notion of utter indifference whether slavery or freedom shall outrun in
the race of empire across to the Pacific--every measure, I say, up to the
Dred Scott decision, where, it seems to me, the idea is boldly suggested
that slavery is better than freedom. The Republican party, on the
contrary, hold that this government was instituted to secure the blessings
of freedom, and that slavery is an unqualified evil to the negro, to the
white man, to the soil, and to the State. Regarding it as an evil, they
will not molest it in the States where it exists, they will not overlook
the constitutional guards which our fathers placed around it; they will
do nothing that can give proper offence to those who hold slaves by legal
sanction; but they will use every constitutional method to prevent the
evil from becoming larger and involving more negroes, more white men,
more soil, and more States in its deplorable consequences. They will, if
possible, place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it
is in course of ultimate peaceable extinction in God's own good time. And
to this end they will, if possible, restore the government to the policy
of the fathers, the policy of preserving the new Territories from the
baneful influence of human bondage, as the Northwestern Territories were
sought to be preserved by the Ordinance of 1787, and the Compromise Act
of 1820. They will oppose, in all its length and breadth, the modern
Democratic idea, that slavery is as good as freedom, and ought to have
room for expansion all over the continent, if people can be found to carry
it. All, or nearly all, of Judge Douglas's arguments are logical, if you
admit that slavery is as good and as right as freedom, and not one of them
is worth a rush if you deny it. This is the difference, as I understand
it, between the Republican and Democratic parties.
My friends, I have endeavored to show you the logical consequences of the
Dred Scott decision, which holds that the people of a Territory cannot
prevent the establishment of slavery in their midst. I have stated what
cannot be gainsaid, that the grounds upon which this decision is made are
equally applicable to the free States as to the free Territories, and
that the peculiar reasons put forth by Judge Douglas for indorsing this
decision commit him, in advance, to the next decision and to all other
decisions corning from the same source. And when, by all these means, you
have succeeded in dehumanizing the negro; when you have put him down and
made it impossible for him to be but as the beasts of the field; when you
have extinguished his soul in this world and placed him where the ray of
hope is blown out as in the darkness of the damned, are you quite
sure that the demon you have roused will not turn and rend you? What
constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence? It is not
our frowning battlements, our bristling sea coasts, our army and our navy.
These are not our reliance against tyranny All of those may be turned
against us without making us weaker for the struggle. Our reliance is in
the love of liberty which God has planted in us. Our defense is in the
spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands
everywhere. Destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds of
despotism at your own doors. Familiarize yourselves with the chains of
bondage and you prepare your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trample
on the rights of others, you have lost the genius of your own independence
and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises among
you. And let me tell you, that all these things are prepared for you by
the teachings of history, if the elections shall promise that the next
Dred Scott decision and all future decisions will be quietly acquiesced in
by the people.
VERSE TO "LINNIE"
September 30,? 1858.
TO "LINNIE":
A sweet plaintive song did I hear
And I fancied that she was the singer.
May emotions as pure as that song set astir
Be the wont that the future shall bring her.
NEGROES ARE MEN
TO J. U. BROWN.
SPRINGFIELD, OCT 18, 1858
HON. J. U. BROWN.
MY DEAR SIR:--I do not perceive how I can express myself more plainly
than I have in the fore-going extracts. In four of them I have expressly
disclaimed all intention to bring about social and political equality
between the white and black races and in all the rest I have done the same
thing by clear implication.
I have made it equally plain that I think the negro is included in the
word "men" used in the Declaration of Independence.
I believe the declaration that "all men are created equal" is the great
fundamental principle upon which our free institutions rest; that
negro slavery is violative of that principle; but that, by our frame of
government, that principle has not been made one of legal obligation; that
by our frame of government, States which have slavery are to retain it, or
surrender it at their own pleasure; and that all others--individuals, free
States and national Government--are constitutionally bound to leave them
alone about it.
I believe our Government was thus framed because of the necessity
springing from the actual presence of slavery, when it was framed.
That such necessity does not exist in the Territories when slavery is not
present.
In his Mendenhall speech Mr. Clay says: "Now as an abstract principle
there is no doubt of the truth of that declaration (all men created
equal), and it is desirable, in the original construction of society, to
keep it in view as a great fundamental principle."
Again, in the same speech Mr. Clay says: "If a state of nature existed
and we were about to lay the foundations of society, no man would be more
strongly opposed than I should to incorporate the institution of slavery
among its elements."
Exactly so. In our new free Territories, a state of nature does exist.
In them Congress lays the foundations of society; and in laying those
foundations, I say, with Mr. Clay, it is desirable that the declaration
of the equality of all men shall be kept in view as a great fundamental
principle, and that Congress, which lays the foundations of society,
should, like Mr. Clay, be strongly opposed to the incorporation of slavery
and its elements.
But it does not follow that social and political equality between whites
and blacks must be incorporated because slavery must not. The declaration
does not so require.
Yours as ever,
A. LINCOLN
[Newspaper cuttings of Lincoln's speeches at Peoria, in 1854, at
Springfield, Ottawa, Chicago, and Charleston, in 1858. They were pasted in
a little book in which the above letter was also written.]
TO A. SYMPSON.
BLANDINSVILLE, Oct 26, 1858
A. SYMPSON, Esq.
DEAR SIR:--Since parting with you this morning I heard some things which
make me believe that Edmunds and Morrill will spend this week among the
National Democrats, trying to induce them to content themselves by voting
for Jake Davis, and then to vote for the Douglas candidates for senator
and representative. Have this headed off, if you can. Call Wagley's
attention to it and have him and the National Democrat for Rep. to
counteract it as far as they can.
Yours as ever,
A. LINCOLN.
SENATORIAL ELECTION LOST AND OUT OF MONEY
TO N. B. JUDD.
SPRINGFIELD, NOVEMBER 16, 1858
HON. N. B. JUDD
DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 15th is just received. I wrote you the same day.
As to the pecuniary matter, I am willing to pay according to my ability;
but I am the poorest hand living to get others to pay. I have been on
expenses so long without earning anything that I am absolutely without
money now for even household purposes. Still, if you can put in two
hundred and fifty dollars for me toward discharging the debt of the
committee, I will allow it when you and I settle the private matter
between us. This, with what I have already paid, and with an outstanding
note of mine, will exceed my subscription of five hundred dollars. This,
too, is exclusive of my ordinary expenses during the campaign, all of
which, being added to my loss of time and business, bears pretty heavily
upon one no better off in [this] world's goods than I; but as I had
the post of honor, it is not for me to be over nice. You are feeling
badly,--"And this too shall pass away," never fear.
Yours as ever,
A. LINCOLN.
THE FIGHT MUST GO ON
TO H. ASBURY.
SPRINGFIELD, November 19, 1858.
HENRY ASBURY, Esq.
DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 13th was received some days ago. The fight must go
on. The cause of civil liberty must not be surrendered at the end of one
or even one hundred defeats. Douglas had the ingenuity to be supported in
the late contest both as the best means to break down and to uphold the
slave interest. No ingenuity can keep these antagonistic elements in
harmony long. Another explosion will soon come.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
REALIZATION THAT DEBATES MUST BE SAVED
TO C. H. RAY.
SPRINGFIELD, Nov.20, 1858
DR. C. H. RAY
MY DEAR SIR:--I wish to preserve a set of the late debates (if they may be
called so), between Douglas and myself. To enable me to do so, please get
two copies of each number of your paper containing the whole, and send
them to me by express; and I will pay you for the papers and for
your trouble. I wish the two sets in order to lay one away in the
[undecipherable word] and to put the other in a scrapbook. Remember, if
part of any debate is on both sides of the sheet it will take two sets to
make one scrap-book.
I believe, according to a letter of yours to Hatch, you are "feeling like
h-ll yet." Quit that--you will soon feel better. Another "blow up" is
coming; and we shall have fun again. Douglas managed to be supported
both as the best instrument to down and to uphold the slave power; but no
ingenuity can long keep the antagonism in harmony.
Yours as ever,
A. LINCOLN
TO H. C. WHITNEY.
SPRINGFIELD, November 30, 1858
H. C. WHITNEY, ESQ.
MY DEAR SIR:--Being desirous of preserving in some permanent form the late
joint discussion between Douglas and myself, ten days ago I wrote to Dr.
Ray, requesting him to forward to me by express two sets of the numbers of
the Tribune which contain the reports of those discussions. Up to date I
have no word from him on the subject. Will you, if in your power, procure
them and forward them to me by express? If you will, I will pay all
charges, and be greatly obliged, to boot. Hoping to visit you before long,
I remain
As ever your friend,
A. LINCOLN.
TO H. D. SHARPE.
SPRINGFIELD, Dec. 8, 1858.
H. D. SHARPE, Esq.
DEAR SIR:--Your very kind letter of Nov. 9th was duly received. I do
not know that you expected or desired an answer; but glancing over the
contents of yours again, I am prompted to say that, while I desired the
result of the late canvass to have been different, I still regard it as
an exceeding small matter. I think we have fairly entered upon a durable
struggle as to whether this nation is to ultimately become all slave or
all free, and though I fall early in the contest, it is nothing if I shall
have contributed, in the least degree, to the final rightful result.
Respectfully yours,
A. LINCOLN.
TO A. SYMPSON.
SPRINGFIELD, Dec.12, 1858.
ALEXANDER SYMPSON, Esq.
MY DEAR SIR:--I expect the result of the election went hard with you. So
it did with me, too, perhaps not quite so hard as you may have supposed.
I have an abiding faith that we shall beat them in the long run. Step by
step the objects of the leaders will become too plain for the people to
stand them. I write merely to let you know that I am neither dead nor
dying. Please give my respects to your good family, and all inquiring
friends.
Yours as ever,
A. LINCOLN.
ON BANKRUPTCY
NOTES OF AN ARGUMENT.
December [?], 1858.
Legislation and adjudication must follow and conform to the progress of
society.
The progress of society now begins to produce cases of the transfer for
debts of the entire property of railroad corporations; and to enable
transferees to use and enjoy the transferred property, legislation and
adjudication begin to be necessary.
Shall this class of legislation just now beginning with us be general or
special?
Section Ten of our Constitution requires that it should be general,
if possible. (Read the section.)
Special legislation always trenches upon the judicial department; and in
so far violates Section Two of the Constitution. (Read it.)
Just reasoning--policy--is in favor of general legislation--else the
Legislature will be loaded down with the investigation of smaller
cases--a work which the courts ought to perform, and can perform much more
perfectly. How can the Legislature rightly decide the facts between P. &
B. and S.C.
It is said that under a general law, whenever a R. R. Co. gets tired
of its debts, it may transfer fraudulently to get rid of them. So they
may--so may individuals; and which--the Legislature or the courts--is best
suited to try the question of fraud in either case?
It is said, if a purchaser have acquired legal rights, let him not be
robbed of them, but if he needs legislation let him submit to just terms
to obtain it.
Let him, say we, have general law in advance (guarded in every possible
way against fraud), so that, when he acquires a legal right, he will have
no occasion to wait for additional legislation; and if he has practiced
fraud let the courts so decide.
A LEGAL OPINION BY ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
The 11th Section of the Act of Congress, approved Feb. 11, 1805,
prescribing rules for the subdivision of sections of land within the
United States system of surveys, standing unrepealed, in my opinion,
is binding on the respective purchasers of different parts of the same
section, and furnishes the true rule for surveyors in establishing
lines between them. That law, being in force at the time each became a
purchaser, becomes a condition of the purchase.
And, by that law, I think the true rule for dividing into quarters any
interior section or sections, which is not fractional, is to run straight
lines through the section from the opposite quarter section corners,
fixing the point where such straight lines cross, or intersect each other,
as the middle or centre of the section.
Nearly, perhaps quite, all the original surveys are to some extent
erroneous, and in some of the sections, greatly so. In each of the latter,
it is obvious that a more equitable mode of division than the above might
be adopted; but as error is infinitely various perhaps no better single
rules can be prescribed.
At all events I think the above has been prescribed by the competent
authority.
SPRINGFIELD, Jany. 6, 1859.
A. LINCOLN.
TO M. W. DELAHAY.
SPRINGFIELD, March 4, 1859.
M. W. DELAHAY, Esq.
MY DEAR SIR: Your second letter in relation to my being with you at your
Republican convention was duly received. It is not at hand just now, but I
have the impression from it that the convention was to be at Leavenworth;
but day before yesterday a friend handed me a letter from Judge M. F.
Caraway, in which he also expresses a wish for me to come, and he fixes
the place at Ossawatomie. This I believe is off of the river, and will
require more time and labor to get to it. It will push me hard to get
there without injury to my own business; but I shall try to do it, though
I am not yet quite certain I shall succeed.
I should like to know before coming, that while some of you wish me to
come, there may not be others who would quite as lief I would stay away.
Write me again.
Yours as ever,
A. LINCOLN.
TO W. M. MORRIS.
SPRINGFIELD, March 28, 1859.
W. M. MORRIS, Esq.
DEAR SIR:--Your kind note inviting me to deliver a lecture at Galesburg is
received. I regret to say I cannot do so now; I must stick to the courts
awhile. I read a sort of lecture to three different audiences during the
last month and this; but I did so under circumstances which made it a
waste of no time whatever.
Yours very truly,
TO H. L. PIERCE AND OTHERS.
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, April 6, 1859.
GENTLEMEN:--Your kind note inviting me to attend a festival in Boston, on
the 28th instant, in honor of the birthday of Thomas Jefferson, was duly
received. My engagements are such that I cannot attend.
Bearing in mind that about seventy years ago two great political parties
were first formed in this country, that Thomas Jefferson was the head of
one of them and Boston the headquarters of the other, it is both curious
and interesting that those supposed to descend politically from the party
opposed to Jefferson should now be celebrating his birthday in their own
original seat of empire, while those claiming political descent from him
have nearly ceased to breathe his name everywhere.
Remembering, too, that the Jefferson party was formed upon its supposed
superior devotion to the personal rights of men, holding the rights of
property to be secondary only, and greatly inferior, and assuming that the
so-called Democracy of to-day are the Jefferson, and their opponents
the anti-Jefferson, party, it will be equally interesting to note how
completely the two have changed hands as to the principle upon which they
were originally supposed to be divided. The Democracy of to-day hold the
liberty of one man to be absolutely nothing, when in conflict with another
man's right of property; Republicans, on the contrary, are for both the
man and the dollar, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar.
I remember being once much amused at seeing two partially intoxicated men
engaged in a fight with their great-coats on, which fight, after a long
and rather harmless contest, ended in each having fought himself out of
his own coat and into that of the other. If the two leading parties of
this day are really identical with the two in the days of Jefferson and
Adams, they have performed the same feat as the two drunken men.
But soberly, it is now no child's play to save the principles of Jefferson
from total overthrow in this nation. One would state with great confidence
that he could convince any sane child that the simpler propositions of
Euclid are true; but nevertheless he would fail, utterly, with one who
should deny the definitions and axioms. The principles of Jefferson are
the definitions and axioms of free society. And yet they are denied
and evaded, with no small show of success. One dashingly calls them
"glittering generalities." Another bluntly calls them "self-evident lies."
And others insidiously argue that they apply to "superior races." These
expressions, differing in form, are identical in object and effect--the
supplanting the principles of free government, and restoring those of
classification, caste, and legitimacy. They would delight a convocation
of crowned heads plotting against the people. They are the vanguard, the
miners and sappers, of returning despotism. We must repulse them, or they
will subjugate us. This is a world of compensation; and he who would be
no slave must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others
deserve it not for themselves, and, under a just God, cannot long retain
it. All honor to Jefferson to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a
struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness,
forecast, and capacity to introduce into a mere revolutionary document an
abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm
it there that to-day and in all coming days it shall be a rebuke and
a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of reappearing tyranny and
oppression.
Your obedient servant,
A. LINCOLN.
TO T. CANISIUS.
SPRINGFIELD, May 17, 1859.
DR. THEODORE CANISIUS.
DEAR SIR:--Your note asking, in behalf of yourself and other German
citizens, whether I am for or against the constitutional provision in
regard to naturalized citizens, lately adopted by Massachusetts, and
whether I am for or against a fusion of the Republicans and other
opposition elements for the canvass of 1860, is received.
Massachusetts is a sovereign and independent State; and it is no privilege
of mine to scold her for what she does. Still, if from what she has done
an inference is sought to be drawn as to what I would do, I may
without impropriety speak out. I say, then, that, as I understand the
Massachusetts provision, I am against its adoption in Illinois, or in any
other place where I have a right to oppose it. Understanding the spirit of
our institutions to aim at the elevation of men, I am opposed to whatever
tends to degrade them. I have some little notoriety for commiserating the
oppressed negro; and I should be strangely inconsistent if I could favor
any project for curtailing the existing rights of white men, even though
born in different lands, and speaking different languages from myself.
As to the matter of fusion, I am for it if it can be had on Republican
grounds; and I am not for it on any other terms. A fusion on any other
terms would be as foolish as unprincipled. It would lose the whole North,
while the common enemy would still carry the whole South. The question of
men is a different one. There are good, patriotic men and able statesmen
in the South whom I would cheerfully support, if they would now place
themselves on Republican ground, but I am against letting down the
Republican standard a hairsbreadth.
I have written this hastily, but I believe it answers your questions
substantially.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO THE GOVERNOR, AUDITOR, AND TREASURER OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.
GENTLEMEN:
In reply to your inquiry; requesting our written opinion as to what your
duty requires you to do in executing the latter clause of the Seventh
Section of "An Act in relation to the payment of the principal and
interest of the State debt," approved Feb'y 22, 1859, we reply that
said last clause of said section is certainly indefinite, general, and
ambiguous in its description of the bonds to be issued by you; giving no
time at which the bonds are to be made payable, no place at which either
principal or interest are to be paid, and no rate of interest which the
bonds are to bear; nor any other description except that they are to be
coupon bonds, which in commercial usage means interest-paying bonds
with obligations or orders attached to them for the payment of annual or
semiannual interest; there is we suppose no difficulty in ascertaining,
if this act stood alone, what ought to be the construction of the terms
"coupon bonds" and that it, would mean bonds bearing interest from the
time of issuing the same. And under this act considered by itself the
creditors would have a right to require such bonds. But your inquiry in
regard to a class of bonds on which no interest is to be paid or shall
begin to run until January 1, 1860, is whether the Act of February 18,
1857, would not authorize you to refuse to give bonds with any coupons
attached payable before the first day of July, 1860. We have very maturely
considered this question and have arrived at the conclusion that you have
a right to use such measures as will secure the State against the loss of
six months' interest on these bonds by the indefiniteness of the Act of
1859. While it cannot be denied that the letter of the laws favor the
construction claimed by some of the creditors that interest-bearing bonds
were required to be issued to them, inasmuch as the restriction that no
interest is to run on said bonds until 1st January, 1860, relates solely
to the bonds issued under the Act of 1857. And the Act of 1859 directing
you to issue new bonds does not contain this restriction, but directs you
to issue coupon bonds. Nevertheless the very indefiniteness and generality
of the Act of 1859, giving no rate of interest, no time due, no place of
payment, no postponement of the time when interest commences, necessarily
implies that the Legislature intended to invest you with a discretion to
impose such terms and restrictions as would protect the interest of the
State; and we think you have a right and that it is your duty to see that
the State Bonds are so issued that the State shall not lose six months'
interest. Two plans present themselves either of which will secure the
State. 1st. If in literal compliance with the law you issue bonds bearing
interest from 1st July, 1859, you may deduct from the bonds presented
three thousand from every $100,000 of bonds and issue $97,000 of
coupon bonds; by this plan $3000 out of $100,000 of principal would be
extinguished in consideration of paying $2910 interest on the first of
January, 1860--and the interest on the $3000 would forever cease; this
would be no doubt most advantageous to the State. But if the Auditor
will not consent to this, then, 2nd. Cut off of each bond all the coupons
payable before 1st July, 1860.
One of these plans would undoubtedly have been prescribed by the
Legislature if its attention had been directed to this question.
May 28, 1859.
ON LINCOLN'S SCRAP BOOK
TO H. C. WHITNEY.
SPRINGFIELD, December 25, 1858.
H. C. WHITNEY, ESQ.
MY DEAR SIR:--I have just received yours of the 23rd inquiring whether I
received the newspapers you sent me by express. I did receive them, and
am very much obliged. There is some probability that my scrap-book will be
reprinted, and if it shall, I will save you a copy.
Your friend as ever,
A. LINCOLN.
1859
FIRST SUGGESTION OF A PRESIDENTIAL OFFER.
TO S. GALLOWAY.
SPRINGFIELD, ILL., July 28, 1859.
HON. SAMUEL GALLOWAY.
MY DEAR SIR:--Your very complimentary, not to say flattering, letter of
the 23d inst. is received. Dr. Reynolds had induced me to expect you here;
and I was disappointed not a little by your failure to come. And yet I
fear you have formed an estimate of me which can scarcely be sustained on
a personal acquaintance.
Two things done by the Ohio Republican convention--the repudiation of
Judge Swan, and the "plank" for a repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law--I very
much regretted. These two things are of a piece; and they are viewed by
many good men, sincerely opposed to slavery, as a struggle against, and in
disregard of, the Constitution itself. And it is the very thing that
will greatly endanger our cause, if it be not kept out of our national
convention. There is another thing our friends are doing which gives me
some uneasiness. It is their leaning toward "popular sovereignty." There
are three substantial objections to this: First, no party can command
respect which sustains this year what it opposed last. Secondly, Douglas
(who is the most dangerous enemy of liberty, because the most insidious
one) would have little support in the North, and by consequence, no
capital to trade on in the South, if it were not for his friends thus
magnifying him and his humbug. But lastly, and chiefly, Douglas's popular
sovereignty, accepted by the public mind as a just principle, nationalizes
slavery, and revives the African slave trade inevitably.