THE WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN
VOLUME 5.
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 Show this to whomever you please, but do not
publish it in the paper.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,
1egislation 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 legis1ation--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 unti1 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.
Taking slaves into new Territories, and buying slaves in Africa, are
identical things, identical rights or identical wrongs, and the
argument which establishes one will establish the other. Try a
thousand years for a sound reason why Congress shall not hinder the
people of Kansas from having slaves, and, when you have found it, it
will be an equally good one why Congress should not hinder the people
of Georgia from importing slaves from Africa.
As to Governor Chase, I have a kind side for him. He was one of the
few distinguished men of the nation who gave us, in Illinois, their
sympathy last year. I never saw him, but suppose him to be able and
right-minded; but still he may not be the most suitable as a
candidate for the Presidency.
I must say I do not think myself fit for the Presidency. As you
propose a correspondence with me, I shall look for your letters
anxiously.
I have not met Dr. Reynolds since receiving your letter; but when I
shall, I will present your respects as requested.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
IT IS BAD TO BE POOR.
TO HAWKINS TAYLOR
SPRINGFIELD, ILL. Sept. 6, 1859.
HAWKINS TAYLOR, Esq.
DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 3d is just received. There is some mistake
about my expected attendance of the U.S. Court in your city on the 3d
Tuesday of this month. I have had no thought of being there.
It is bad to be poor. I shall go to the wall for bread and meat if I
neglect my business this year as well as last. It would please me
much to see the city and good people of Keokuk, but for this year it
is little less than an impossibility. I am constantly receiving
invitations which I am compelled to decline. I was pressingly urged
to go to Minnesota; and I now have two invitations to go to Ohio.
These last are prompted by Douglas going there; and I am really
tempted to make a flying trip to Columbus and Cincinnati.
I do hope you will have no serious trouble in Iowa. What thinks
Grimes about it? I have not known him to be mistaken about an
election in Iowa. Present my respects to Col. Carter, and any other
friends, and believe me
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
SPEECH AT COLUMBUS, OHIO.
SEPTEMBER 16, 1859.
FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF OHIO: I cannot fail to remember that
I appear for the first time before an audience in this now great
State,--an audience that is accustomed to hear such speakers as
Corwin, and Chase, and Wade, and many other renowned men; and,
remembering this, I feel that it will be well for you, as for me,
that you should not raise your expectations to that standard to which
you would have been justified in raising them had one of these
distinguished men appeared before you. You would perhaps be only
preparing a disappointment for yourselves, and, as a consequence of
your disappointment, mortification to me. I hope, therefore, that
you will commence with very moderate expectations; and perhaps, if
you will give me your attention, I shall be able to interest you to a
moderate degree.
Appearing here for the first time in my life, I have been somewhat
embarrassed for a topic by way of introduction to my speech; but I
have been relieved from that embarrassment by an introduction which
the Ohio Statesman newspaper gave me this morning. In this paper I
have read an article, in which, among other statements, I find the
following:
"In debating with Senator Douglas during the memorable contest of
last fall, Mr. Lincoln declared in favor of negro suffrage, and
attempted to defend that vile conception against the Little Giant."
I mention this now, at the opening of my remarks, for the purpose of
making three comments upon it. The first I have already announced,--
it furnishes me an introductory topic; the second is to show that the
gentleman is mistaken; thirdly, to give him an opportunity to correct
it.
In the first place, in regard to this matter being a mistake. I have
found that it is not entirely safe, when one is misrepresented under
his very nose, to allow the misrepresentation to go uncontradicted.
I therefore propose, here at the outset, not only to say that this is
a misrepresentation, but to show conclusively that it is so; and you
will bear with me while I read a couple of extracts from that very
"memorable" debate with Judge Douglas last year, to which this
newspaper refers. In the first pitched battle which Senator Douglas
and myself had, at the town of Ottawa, I used the language which I
will now read. Having been previously reading an extract, I
continued as follows:
"Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any greater length, but this
is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the
institution of slavery and the black race. This is the whole of it;
and anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and
political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastic
arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be
a chestnut horse. I will say here, while upon this subject, that I
have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the
institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I
have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I
have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between
the white and the black races. There is a physical difference
between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forbid their
ever living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and
inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference,
I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I
belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to
the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no
reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural
rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence,--the right to
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as
much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with judge Douglas,
he is not my equal in many respects,--certainly not in color, perhaps
not in moral or intellectual endowments. But in the right to eat the
bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is
my equal, and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every
living man."
Upon a subsequent occasion, when the reason for making a statement
like this occurred, I said:
"While I was at the hotel to-day an elderly gentleman called upon me
to know whether I was really in favor of producing perfect equality
between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to
myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet, as the
question was asked me, I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes
in saying something in regard to it. I will say, then, that I am
not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the
social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am
not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of
negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, or intermarry with
the white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a
physical difference between the white and black races which I believe
will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social
and political equality. And inasmuch as they can not so live, while
they do remain together there must be the position of superior and
inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the
superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this
occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the
superior position, the negro should be denied everything. I do not
understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave, I
must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can
just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly
never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it
seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either
slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never
seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child, who was in favor of
producing perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and
white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I ever
heard of so frequently as to be satisfied of its correctness, and
that is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend Colonel Richard M.
Johnson. I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not
going to enter at large upon this subject, that I have never had the
least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes, if there
was no law to keep them from it; but as judge Douglas and his friends
seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no
law to keep them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I
will to the very last stand by the law of the State which forbids the
marrying of white people with negroes."
There, my friends, you have briefly what I have, upon former
occasions, said upon this subject to which this newspaper, to the
extent of its ability, has drawn the public attention. In it you not
only perceive, as a probability, that in that contest I did not at
any time say I was in favor of negro suffrage, but the absolute proof
that twice--once substantially, and once expressly--I declared
against it. Having shown you this, there remains but a word of
comment upon that newspaper article. It is this, that I presume the
editor of that paper is an honest and truth-loving man, and that he
will be greatly obliged to me for furnishing him thus early an
opportunity to correct the misrepresentation he has made, before it
has run so long that malicious people can call him a liar.
The Giant himself has been here recently. I have seen a brief report
of his speech. If it were otherwise unpleasant to me to introduce
the subject of the negro as a topic for discussion, I might be
somewhat relieved by the fact that he dealt exclusively in that
subject while he was here. I shall, therefore, without much
hesitation or diffidence, enter upon this subject.
The American people, on the first day of January, 1854, found the
African slave trade prohibited by a law of Congress. In a majority
of the States of this Union, they found African slavery, or any other
sort of slavery, prohibited by State constitutions. They also found
a law existing, supposed to be valid, by which slavery was excluded
from almost all the territory the United States then owned. This was
the condition of the country, with reference to the institution of
slavery, on the first of January, 1854. A few days after that, a
bill was introduced into Congress, which ran through its regular
course in the two branches of the national legislature, and finally
passed into a law in the month of May, by which the Act of Congress
prohibiting slavery from going into the Territories of the United
States was repealed. In connection with the law itself, and, in
fact, in the terms of the law, the then existing prohibition was not
only repealed, but there was a declaration of a purpose on the part
of Congress never thereafter to exercise any power that they might
have, real or supposed, to prohibit the extension or spread of
slavery. This was a very great change; for the law thus repealed was
of more than thirty years' standing. Following rapidly upon the
heels of this action of Congress, a decision of the Supreme Court is
made, by which it is declared that Congress, if it desires to
prohibit the spread of slavery into the Territories, has no
constitutional power to do so. Not only so, but that decision lays
down principles which, if pushed to their logical conclusion,--I say
pushed to their logical conclusion,--would decide that the
constitutions of free States, forbidding slavery, are themselves
unconstitutional. Mark me, I do not say the judges said this, and
let no man say I affirm the judges used these words; but I only say
it is my opinion that what they did say, if pressed to its logical
conclusion, will inevitably result thus.
Looking at these things, the Republican party, as I understand its
principles and policy, believes that there is great danger of the
institution of slavery being spread out and extended until it is
ultimately made alike lawful in all the States of this Union; so
believing, to prevent that incidental and ultimate consummation is
the original and chief purpose of the Republican organization. I say
"chief purpose" of the Republican organization; for it is certainly
true that if the National House shall fall into the hands of the
Republicans, they will have to attend to all the other matters of
national house-keeping, as well as this. The chief and real purpose
of the Republican party is eminently conservative. It proposes
nothing save and except to restore this government to its original
tone in regard to this element of slavery, and there to maintain it,
looking for no further change in reference to it than that which the
original framers of the Government themselves expected and looked
forward to.
The chief danger to this purpose of the Republican party is not just
now the revival of the African slave trade, or the passage of a
Congressional slave code, or the declaring of a second Dred Scott
decision, making slavery lawful in all the States. These are not
pressing us just now. They are not quite ready yet. The authors of
these measures know that we are too strong for them; but they will be
upon us in due time, and we will be grappling with them hand to hand,
if they are not now headed off. They are not now the chief danger to
the purpose of the Republican organization; but the most imminent
danger that now threatens that purpose is that insidious Douglas
popular sovereignty. This is the miner and sapper. While it does
not propose to revive the African slave trade, nor to pass a slave
code, nor to make a second Dred Scott decision, it is preparing us
for the onslaught and charge of these ultimate enemies when they
shall be ready to come on, and the word of command for them to
advance shall be given. I say this "Douglas popular sovereignty";
for there is a broad distinction, as I now understand it, between
that article and a genuine popular sovereignty.
I believe there is a genuine popular sovereignty. I think a
definition of "genuine popular sovereignty," in the abstract, would
be about this: That each man shall do precisely as he pleases with
himself, and with all those things which exclusively concern him.
Applied to government, this principle would be, that a general
government shall do all those things which pertain to it, and all the
local governments shall do precisely as they please in respect to
those matters which exclusively concern them. I understand that this
government of the United States, under which we live, is based upon
this principle; and I am misunderstood if it is supposed that I have
any war to make upon that principle.
Now, what is judge Douglas's popular sovereignty? It is, as a
principle, no other than that if one man chooses to make a slave of
another man neither that other man nor anybody else has a right to
object. Applied in government, as he seeks to apply it, it is this:
If, in a new Territory into which a few people are beginning to enter
for the purpose of making their homes, they choose to either exclude
slavery from their limits or to establish it there, however one or
the other may affect the persons to be enslaved, or the infinitely
greater number of persons who are afterwards to inhabit that
Territory, or the other members of the families of communities, of
which they are but an incipient member, or the general head of the
family of States as parent of all, however their action may affect
one or the other of these, there is no power or right to interfere.
That is Douglas's popular sovereignty applied.
He has a good deal of trouble with popular sovereignty. His
explanations explanatory of explanations explained are interminable.
The most lengthy, and, as I suppose, the most maturely considered of
this long series of explanations is his great essay in Harper's
Magazine. I will not attempt to enter on any very thorough
investigation of his argument as there made and presented. I will
nevertheless occupy a good portion of your time here in drawing your
attention to certain points in it. Such of you as may have read this
document will have perceived that the judge early in the document
quotes from two persons as belonging to the Republican party, without
naming them, but who can readily be recognized as being Governor
Seward of New York and myself. It is true that exactly fifteen
months ago this day, I believe, I for the first time expressed a
sentiment upon this subject, and in such a manner that it should get
into print, that the public might see it beyond the circle of my
hearers; and my expression of it at that time is the quotation that
Judge Douglas makes. He has not made the quotation with accuracy, but
justice to him requires me to say that it is sufficiently accurate
not to change the sense.
The sense of that quotation condensed is this: that this slavery
element is a durable element of discord among us, and that we shall
probably not have perfect peace in this country with it until it
either masters the free principle in our government, or is so far
mastered by the free principle as for the public mind to rest in the
belief that it is going to its end. This sentiment, which I now
express in this way, was, at no great distance of time, perhaps in
different language, and in connection with some collateral ideas,
expressed by Governor Seward. Judge Douglas has been so much annoyed
by the expression of that sentiment that he has constantly, I
believe, in almost all his speeches since it was uttered, been
referring to it. I find he alluded to it in his speech here, as well
as in the copyright essay. I do not now enter upon this for the
purpose of making an elaborate argument to show that we were right in
the expression of that sentiment. In other words, I shall not stop
to say all that might properly be said upon this point, but I only
ask your attention to it for the purpose of making one or two points
upon it.
If you will read the copyright essay, you will discover that judge
Douglas himself says a controversy between the American Colonies and
the Government of Great Britain began on the slavery question in
1699, and continued from that time until the Revolution; and, while
he did not say so, we all know that it has continued with more or
less violence ever since the Revolution.
Then we need not appeal to history, to the declarations of the
framers of the government, but we know from judge Douglas himself
that slavery began to be an element of discord among the white people
of this country as far back as 1699, or one hundred and sixty years
ago, or five generations of men,--counting thirty years to a
generation. Now, it would seem to me that it might have occurred to
Judge Douglas, or anybody who had turned his attention to these
facts, that there was something in the nature of that thing, slavery,
somewhat durable for mischief and discord.
There is another point I desire to make in regard to this matter,
before I leave it. From the adoption of the Constitution down to 1820
is the precise period of our history when we had comparative peace
upon this question,--the precise period of time when we came nearer
to having peace about it than any other time of that entire one
hundred and sixty years in which he says it began, or of the eighty
years of our own Constitution. Then it would be worth our while to
stop and examine into the probable reason of our coming nearer to
having peace then than at any other time. This was the precise
period of time in which our fathers adopted, and during which they
followed, a policy restricting the spread of slavery, and the whole
Union was acquiescing in it. The whole country looked forward to the
ultimate extinction of the institution. It was when a policy had
been adopted, and was prevailing, which led all just and right-minded
men to suppose that slavery was gradually coming to an end, and that
they might be quiet about it, watching it as it expired. I think
Judge Douglas might have perceived that too; and whether he did or
not, it is worth the attention of fair-minded men, here and
elsewhere, to consider whether that is not the truth of the case. If
he had looked at these two facts,--that this matter has been an
element of discord for one hundred and sixty years among this people,
and that the only comparative peace we have had about it was when
that policy prevailed in this government which he now wars upon, he
might then, perhaps, have been brought to a more just appreciation of
what I said fifteen months ago,--that "a house divided against itself
cannot stand. I believe that this government cannot endure
permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to
fall, I do not expect the Union to dissolve; 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 will rest in the belief that it is
in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it
forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as
well as new, North as well as South." That was my sentiment at that
time. In connection with it, I said: "We are now far into the fifth
year since a policy was inaugurated with the avowed object and
confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the
operation of the policy that agitation has not only not ceased, but
has constantly augmented." I now say to you here that we are
advanced still farther into the sixth year since that policy of Judge
Douglas--that popular sovereignty of his--for quieting the slavery
question was made the national policy. Fifteen months more have been
added since I uttered that sentiment; and I call upon you and all
other right-minded men to say whether that fifteen months have belied
or corroborated my words.
While I am here upon this subject, I cannot but express gratitude
that this true view of this element of discord among us--as I believe
it is--is attracting more and more attention. I do not believe that
Governor Seward uttered that sentiment because I had done so before,
but because he reflected upon this subject and saw the truth of it.
Nor do I believe because Governor Seward or I uttered it that Mr.
Hickman of Pennsylvania, in, different language, since that time, has
declared his belief in the utter antagonism which exists between the
principles of liberty and slavery. You see we are multiplying. Now,
while I am speaking of Hickman, let me say, I know but little about
him. I have never seen him, and know scarcely anything about the
man; but I will say this much of him: Of all the anti-Lecompton
Democracy that have been brought to my notice, he alone has the true,
genuine ring of the metal. And now, without indorsing anything else
he has said, I will ask this audience to give three cheers for
Hickman. [The audience responded with three rousing cheers for
Hickman.]
Another point in the copyright essay to which I would ask your
attention is rather a feature to be extracted from the whole thing,
than from any express declaration of it at any point. It is a
general feature of that document, and, indeed, of all of Judge
Douglas's discussions of this question, that the Territories of the
United States and the States of this Union are exactly alike; that
there is no difference between them at all; that the Constitution
applies to the Territories precisely as it does to the States; and
that the United States Government, under the Constitution, may not do
in a State what it may not do in a Territory, and what it must do in
a State it must do in a Territory. Gentlemen, is that a true view of
the case? It is necessary for this squatter sovereignty, but is it
true?
Let us consider. What does it depend upon? It depends altogether
upon the proposition that the States must, without the interference
of the General Government, do all those things that pertain
exclusively to themselves,--that are local in their nature, that have
no connection with the General Government. After Judge Douglas has
established this proposition, which nobody disputes or ever has
disputed, he proceeds to assume, without proving it, that slavery is
one of those little, unimportant, trivial matters which are of just
about as much consequence as the question would be to me whether my
neighbor should raise horned cattle or plant tobacco; that there is
no moral question about it, but that it is altogether a matter of
dollars and cents; that when a new Territory is opened for
settlement, the first man who goes into it may plant there a thing
which, like the Canada thistle or some other of those pests of the
soil, cannot be dug out by the millions of men who will come
thereafter; that it is one of those little things that is so trivial
in its nature that it has nor effect upon anybody save the few men
who first plant upon the soil; that it is not a thing which in any
way affects the family of communities composing these States, nor any
way endangers the General Government. Judge Douglas ignores
altogether the very well known fact that we have never had a serious
menace to our political existence, except it sprang from this thing,
which he chooses to regard as only upon a par with onions and
potatoes.
Turn it, and contemplate it in another view. He says that, according
to his popular sovereignty, the General Government may give to the
Territories governors, judges, marshals, secretaries, and all the
other chief men to govern them, but they, must not touch upon this
other question. Why? The question of who shall be governor of a
Territory for a year or two, and pass away, without his track being
left upon the soil, or an act which he did for good or for evil being
left behind, is a question of vast national magnitude; it is so much
opposed in its nature to locality that the nation itself must decide
it: while this other matter of planting slavery upon a soil,--a thing
which, once planted, cannot be eradicated by the succeeding millions
who have as much right there as the first comers, or, if eradicated,
not without infinite difficulty and a long struggle, he considers the
power to prohibit it as one of these little local, trivial things
that the nation ought not to say a word about; that it affects nobody
save the few men who are there.
Take these two things and consider them together, present the
question of planting a State with the institution of slavery by the
side of a question who shall be Governor of Kansas for a year or two,
and is there a man here, is there a man on earth, who would not say
the governor question is the little one, and the slavery question is
the great one? I ask any honest Democrat if the small, the local,
and the trivial and temporary question is not, Who shall be governor?
while the durable, the important, and the mischievous one is, Shall
this soil be planted with slavery?
This is an idea, I suppose, which has arisen in Judge Douglas's mind
from his peculiar structure. I suppose the institution of slavery
really looks small to him. He is so put up by nature that a lash
upon his back would hurt him, but a lash upon anybody else's back
does not hurt him. That is the build of the man, and consequently he
looks upon the matter of slavery in this unimportant light.
Judge Douglas ought to remember, when he is endeavoring to force this
policy upon the American people, that while he is put up in that way,
a good many are not. He ought to remember that there was once in
this country a man by the name of Thomas Jefferson, supposed to be a
Democrat,--a man whose principles and policy are not very prevalent
amongst Democrats to-day, it is true; but that man did not take
exactly this view of the insignificance of the element of slavery
which our friend judge Douglas does. In contemplation of this thing,
we all know he was led to exclaim, "I tremble for my country when I
remember that God is just!" We know how he looked upon it when he
thus expressed himself. There was danger to this country,--danger of
the avenging justice of God, in that little unimportant popular
sovereignty question of judge Douglas. He supposed there was a
question of God's eternal justice wrapped up in the enslaving of any
race of men, or any man, and that those who did so braved the arm of
Jehovah; that when a nation thus dared the Almighty, every friend of
that nation had cause to dread his wrath. Choose ye between
Jefferson and Douglas as to what is the true view of this element
among us.
There is another little difficulty about this matter of treating the
Territories and States alike in all things, to which I ask your
attention, and I shall leave this branch of the case. If there is no
difference between them, why not make the Territories States at once?
What is the reason that Kansas was not fit to come into the Union
when it was organized into a Territory, in Judge Douglas's view? Can
any of you tell any reason why it should not have come into the Union
at once? They are fit, as he thinks, to decide upon the slavery
question,--the largest and most important with which they could
possibly deal: what could they do by coming into the Union that they
are not fit to do, according to his view, by staying out of it? Oh,
they are not fit to sit in Congress and decide upon the rates of
postage, or questions of ad valorem or specific duties on foreign
goods, or live-oak timber contracts, they are not fit to decide these
vastly important matters, which are national in their import, but
they are fit, "from the jump," to decide this little negro question.
But, gentlemen, the case is too plain; I occupy too much time on this
head, and I pass on.
Near the close of the copyright essay, the judge, I think, comes very
near kicking his own fat into the fire. I did not think, when I
commenced these remarks, that I would read that article, but I now
believe I will:
"This exposition of the history of these measures shows conclusively
that the authors of the Compromise measures of 1850 and of the
Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, as well as the members of the
Continental Congress of 1774., and the founders of our system of
government subsequent to the Revolution, regarded the people of the
Territories and Colonies as political communities which were entitled
to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their provisional
legislatures, where their representation could alone be preserved, in
all cases of taxation and internal polity."
When the judge saw that putting in the word "slavery" would
contradict his own history, he put in what he knew would pass
synonymous with it,"internal polity." Whenever we find that in one
of his speeches, the substitute is used in this manner; and I can
tell you the reason. It would be too bald a contradiction to say
slavery; but "internal polity" is a general phrase, which would pass
in some quarters, and which he hopes will pass with the reading
community for the same thing.
"This right pertains to the people collectively, as a law-abiding and
peaceful community, and not in the isolated individuals who may
wander upon the public domain in violation of the law. It can only be
exercised where there are inhabitants sufficient to constitute a
government, and capable of performing its various functions and
duties,--a fact to be ascertained and determined by "who do you
think? Judge Douglas says "by Congress!" "Whether the number shall
be fixed at ten, fifteen or twenty thousand inhabitants, does not
affect the principle."
Now, I have only a few comments to make. Popular sovereignty, by his
own words, does not pertain to the few persons who wander upon the
public domain in violation of law. We have his words for that. When
it does pertain to them, is when they are sufficient to be formed
into an organized political community, and he fixes the minimum for
that at ten thousand, and the maximum at twenty thousand. Now, I
would like to know what is to be done with the nine thousand? Are
they all to be treated, until they are large enough to be organized
into a political community, as wanderers upon the public land, in
violation of law? And if so treated and driven out, at what point of
time would there ever be ten thousand? If they were not driven out,
but remained there as trespassers upon the public land in violation
of the law, can they establish slavery there? No; the judge says
popular sovereignty don't pertain to them then. Can they exclude it
then? No; popular sovereignty don't pertain to them then. I would
like to know, in the case covered by the essay, what condition the
people of the Territory are in before they reach the number of ten
thousand?
But the main point I wish to ask attention to is, that the question
as to when they shall have reached a sufficient number to be formed
into a regular organized community is to be decided "by Congress."
Judge Douglas says so. Well, gentlemen, that is about all we want.
No, that is all the Southerners want. That is what all those who are
for slavery want. They do not want Congress to prohibit slavery from
coming into the new Territories, and they do not want popular
sovereignty to hinder it; and as Congress is to say when they are
ready to be organized, all that the South has to do is to get
Congress to hold off. Let Congress hold off until they are ready to
be admitted as a State, and the South has all it wants in taking
slavery into and planting it in all the Territories that we now have
or hereafter may have. In a word, the whole thing, at a dash of the
pen, is at last put in the power of Congress; for if they do not have
this popular sovereignty until Congress organizes them, I ask if it
at last does not come from Congress? If, at last, it amounts to
anything at all, Congress gives it to them. I submit this rather for
your reflection than for comment. After all that is said, at last,
by a dash of the pen, everything that has gone before is undone, and
he puts the whole question under the control of Congress. After
fighting through more than three hours, if you undertake to read it,
he at last places the whole matter under the control of that power
which he has been contending against, and arrives at a result
directly contrary to what he had been laboring to do. He at last
leaves the whole matter to the control of Congress.
There are two main objects, as I understand it, of this Harper's
Magazine essay. One was to show, if possible, that the men of our
Revolutionary times were in favor of his popular sovereignty, and the
other was to show that the Dred Scott decision had not entirely
squelched out this popular sovereignty. I do not propose, in regard
to this argument drawn from the history of former times, to enter
into a detailed examination of the historical statements he has made.
I have the impression that they are inaccurate in a great many
instances,--sometimes in positive statement, but very much more
inaccurate by the suppression of statements that really belong to the
history. But I do not propose to affirm that this is so to any very
great extent, or to enter into a very minute examination of his
historical statements. I avoid doing so upon this principle,--that
if it were important for me to pass out of this lot in the least
period of time possible, and I came to that fence, and saw by a
calculation of my known strength and agility that I could clear it at
a bound, it would be folly for me to stop and consider whether I
could or not crawl through a crack. So I say of the whole history
contained in his essay where he endeavored to link the men of the
Revolution to popular sovereignty. It only requires an effort to
leap out of it, a single bound to be entirely successful. If you
read it over, you will find that he quotes here and there from
documents of the Revolutionary times, tending to show that the people
of the colonies were desirous of regulating their own concerns in
their own way, that the British Government should not interfere; that
at one time they struggled with the British Government to be
permitted to exclude the African slave trade,--if not directly, to be
permitted to exclude it indirectly, by taxation sufficient to
discourage and destroy it. From these and many things of this sort,
judge Douglas argues that they were in favor of the people of our own
Territories excluding slavery if they wanted to, or planting it there
if they wanted to, doing just as they pleased from the time they
settled upon the Territory. Now, however his history may apply and
whatever of his argument there may be that is sound and accurate or
unsound and inaccurate, if we can find out what these men did
themselves do upon this very question of slavery in the Territories,
does it not end the whole thing? If, after all this labor and effort
to show that the men of the Revolution were in favor of his popular
sovereignty and his mode of dealing with slavery in the Territories,
we can show that these very men took hold of that subject, and dealt
with it, we can see for ourselves how they dealt with it. It is not
a matter of argument or inference, but we know what they thought
about it.
It is precisely upon that part of the history of the country that one
important omission is made by Judge Douglas. He selects parts of the
history of the United States upon the subject of slavery, and treats
it as the whole, omitting from his historical sketch the legislation
of Congress in regard to the admission of Missouri, by which the
Missouri Compromise was established and slavery excluded from a
country half as large as the present United States. All this is left
out of his history, and in nowise alluded to by him, so far as I can
remember, save once, when he makes a remark, that upon his principle
the Supreme Court were authorized to pronounce a decision that the
act called the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. All that
history has been left out. But this part of the history of the
country was not made by the men of the Revolution.
There was another part of our political history, made by the very men
who were the actors in the Revolution, which has taken the name of
the Ordinance of '87. Let me bring that history to your attention.
In 1784, I believe, this same Mr. Jefferson drew up an ordinance for
the government of the country upon which we now stand, or, rather, a
frame or draft of an ordinance for the government of this country,
here in Ohio, our neighbors in Indiana, us who live in Illinois, our
neighbors in Wisconsin and Michigan. In that ordinance, drawn up not
only for the government of that Territory, but for the Territories
south of the Ohio River, Mr. Jefferson expressly provided for the
prohibition of slavery. Judge Douglas says, and perhaps is right,
that that provision was lost from that ordinance. I believe that is
true. When the vote was taken upon it, a majority of all present in
the Congress of the Confederation voted for it; but there were so
many absentees that those voting for it did not make the clear
majority necessary, and it was lost. But three years after that, the
Congress of the Confederation were together again, and they adopted a
new ordinance for the government of this Northwest Territory, not
contemplating territory south of the river, for the States owning
that territory had hitherto refrained from giving it to the General
Government; hence they made the ordinance to apply only to what the
Government owned. In fact, the provision excluding slavery was
inserted aside, passed unanimously, or at any rate it passed and
became a part of the law of the land. Under that ordinance we live.
First here in Ohio you were a Territory; then an enabling act was
passed, authorizing you to form a constitution and State Government,
provided it was republican and not in conflict with the Ordinance of
'87. When you framed your constitution and presented it for
admission, I think you will find the legislation upon the subject
will show that, whereas you had formed a constitution that was
republican, and not in conflict with the Ordinance of '87, therefore
you were admitted upon equal footing with the original States. The
same process in a few years was gone through with in Indiana, and so
with Illinois, and the same substantially with Michigan and
Wisconsin.
Not only did that Ordinance prevail, but it was constantly looked to
whenever a step was taken by a new Territory to become a State.
Congress always turned their attention to it, and in all their
movements upon this subject they traced their course by that
Ordinance of '87. When they admitted new States, they advertised
them of this Ordinance, as a part of the legislation of the country.
They did so because they had traced the Ordinance of '87 throughout
the history of this country. Begin with the men of the Revolution,
and go down for sixty entire years, and until the last scrap of that
Territory comes into the Union in the form of the State of Wisconsin,
everything was made to conform with the Ordinance of '87, excluding
slavery from that vast extent of country.
I omitted to mention in the right place that the Constitution of the
United States was in process of being framed when that Ordinance was
made by the Congress of the Confederation; and one of the first Acts
of Congress itself, under the new Constitution itself, was to give
force to that Ordinance by putting power to carry it out in the hands
of the new officers under the Constitution, in the place of the old
ones, who had been legislated out of existence by the change in the
Government from the Confederation to the Constitution. Not only so,
but I believe Indiana once or twice, if not Ohio, petitioned the
General Government for the privilege of suspending that provision and
allowing them to have slaves. A report made by Mr. Randolph, of
Virginia, himself a slaveholder, was directly against it, and the
action was to refuse them the privilege of violating the Ordinance of
'87.
This period of history, which I have run over briefly, is, I presume,
as familiar to most of this assembly as any other part of the history
of our country. I suppose that few of my hearers are not as familiar
with that part of history as I am, and I only mention it to recall
your attention to it at this time. And hence I ask how extraordinary
a thing it is that a man who has occupied a position upon the floor
of the Senate of the United States, who is now in his third term, and
who looks to see the government of this whole country fall into his
own hands, pretending to give a truthful and accurate history o the
slavery question in this country, should so entirely ignore the whole
of that portion of our history--the most important of all. Is it not
a most extraordinary spectacle that a man should stand up and ask for
any confidence in his statements who sets out as he does with
portions of history, calling upon the people to believe that it is a
true and fair representation, when the leading part and controlling
feature of the whole history is carefully suppressed?
But the mere leaving out is not the most remarkable feature of this
most remarkable essay. His proposition is to establish that the
leading men of the Revolution were for his great principle of
nonintervention by the government in the question of slavery in the
Territories, while history shows that they decided, in the cases
actually brought before them, in exactly the contrary way, and he
knows it. Not only did they so decide at that time, but they stuck
to it during sixty years, through thick and thin, as long as there
was one of the Revolutionary heroes upon the stage of political
action. Through their whole course, from first to last, they clung
to freedom. And now he asks the community to believe that the men of
the Revolution were in favor of his great principle, when we have the
naked history that they themselves dealt with this very subject
matter of his principle, and utterly repudiated his principle, acting
upon a precisely contrary ground. It is as impudent and absurd as if
a prosecuting attorney should stand up before a jury and ask them
to convict A as the murderer of B, while B was walking alive before
them.
I say, again, if judge Douglas asserts that the men of the Revolution
acted upon principles by which, to be consistent with themselves,
they ought to have adopted his popular sovereignty, then, upon a
consideration of his own argument, he had a right to make ,you
believe that they understood the principles of government, but
misapplied them, that he has arisen to enlighten the world as to the
just application of this principle. He has a right to try to
persuade you that he understands their principles better than they
did, and, therefore, he will apply them now, not as they did, but as
they ought to have done. He has a right to go before the community
and try to convince them of this, but he has no right to attempt to
impose upon any one the belief that these men themselves approved of
his great principle. There are two ways of establishing a
proposition. One is by trying to demonstrate it upon reason, and the
other is, to show that great men in former times have thought so and
so, and thus to pass it by the weight of pure authority. Now, if
Judge Douglas will demonstrate somehow that this is popular
sovereignty,--the right of one man to make a slave of another,
without any right in that other or any one else to object,-
-demonstrate it as Euclid demonstrated propositions,--there is no
objection. But when he comes forward, seeking to carry a principle
by bringing to it the authority of men who themselves utterly
repudiate that principle, I ask that he shall not be permitted to do
it.
I see, in the judge's speech here, a short sentence in these words:
"Our fathers, when they formed this government under which we live,
understood this question just as well, and even better than, we do
now." That is true; I stick to that. I will stand by Judge Douglas
in that to the bitter end. And now, Judge Douglas, come and stand by
me, and truthfully show how they acted, understanding it better than
we do. All I ask of you, Judge Douglas, is to stick to the
proposition that the men of the Revolution understood this subject
better than we do now, and with that better understanding they acted
better than you are trying to act now.
I wish to say something now in regard to the Dred Scott decision, as
dealt with by Judge Douglas. In that "memorable debate" between
Judge Douglas and myself, last year, the judge thought fit to
commence a process of catechising me, and at Freeport I answered his
questions, and propounded some to him. Among others propounded to
him was one that I have here now. The substance, as I remember it,
is, "Can the people of a United States Territory, under the Dred
Scott decision, in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of
the United States, exclude slavery from its limits, prior to the
formation of a State constitution?" He answered that they could
lawfully exclude slavery from the United States Territories,
notwithstanding the Dred Scot decision. There was something about
that answer that has probably been a trouble to the judge ever since.
The Dred Scott decision expressly gives every citizen of the United
States a right to carry his slaves into the United States
Territories. And now there was some inconsistency in saying that the
decision was right, and saying, too, that the people of the Territory
could lawfully drive slavery out again. When all the trash, the
words, the collateral matter, was cleared away from it, all the chaff
was fanned out of it, it was a bare absurdity,--no less than that a
thing may be lawfully driven away from where it has a lawful right to
be. Clear it of all the verbiage, and that is the naked truth of his
proposition,--that a thing may be lawfully driven from the place
where it has a lawful right to stay. Well, it was because the judge
could n't help seeing this that he has had so much trouble with it;
and what I want to ask your especial attention to, just now, is to
remind you, if you have not noticed the fact, that the judge does not
any longer say that the people can exclude slavery. He does not say
so in the copyright essay; he did not say so in the speech that he
made here; and, so far as I know, since his re-election to the Senate
he has never said, as he did at Freeport, that the people of the
Territories can exclude slavery. He desires that you, who wish the
Territories to remain free, should believe that he stands by that
position; but he does not say it himself. He escapes to some extent
the absurd position I have stated, by changing his language entirely.
What he says now is something different in language, and we will
consider whether it is not different in sense too. It is now that
the Dred Scott decision, or rather the Constitution under that
decision, does not carry slavery into the Territories beyond the
power of the people of the Territories to control it as other
property. He does not say the people can drive it out, but they can
control it as other property. The language is different; we should
consider whether the sense is different. Driving a horse out of this
lot is too plain a proposition to be mistaken about; it is putting
him on the other side of the fence. Or it might be a sort of
exclusion of him from the lot if you were to kill him and let the
worms devour him; but neither of these things is the same as
"controlling him as other property." That would be to feed him, to
pamper him, to ride him, to use and abuse him, to make the most money
out of him, "as other property"; but, please you, what do the men who
are in favor of slavery want more than this? What do they really
want, other than that slavery, being in the Territories, shall be
controlled as other property? If they want anything else, I do not
comprehend it. I ask your attention to this, first, for the purpose
of pointing out the change of ground the judge has made; and, in the
second place, the importance of the change,--that that change is not
such as to give you gentlemen who want his popular sovereignty the
power to exclude the institution or drive it out at all. I know the
judge sometimes squints at the argument that in controlling it as
other property by unfriendly legislation they may control it to
death; as you might, in the case of a horse, perhaps, feed him so
lightly and ride him so much that he would die. But when you come to
legislative control, there is something more to be attended to. I
have no doubt, myself, that if the Territories should undertake to
control slave property as other property that is, control it in such
a way that it would be the most valuable as property, and make it
bear its just proportion in the way of burdens as property, really
deal with it as property,--the Supreme Court of the United States
will say, "God speed you, and amen." But I undertake to give the
opinion, at least, that if the Territories attempt by any direct
legislation to drive the man with his slave out of the Territory, or
to decide that his slave is free because of his being taken in there,
or to tax him to such an extent that he cannot keep him there, the
Supreme Court will unhesitatingly decide all such legislation
unconstitutional, as long as that Supreme Court is constructed as the
Dred Scott Supreme Court is. The first two things they have already
decided, except that there is a little quibble among lawyers between
the words "dicta" and "decision." They have already decided a negro
cannot be made free by Territorial legislation.
What is the Dred Scott decision? Judge Douglas labors to show that
it is one thing, while I think it is altogether different. It is a
long opinion, but it is all embodied in this short statement: "The
Constitution of the United States forbids Congress to deprive a man
of his property, without due process of law; the right of property in
slaves is distinctly and expressly affirmed in that Constitution:
therefore, if Congress shall undertake to say that a man's slave is
no longer his slave when he crosses a certain line into a Territory,
that is depriving him of his property without due process of law, and
is unconstitutional." There is the whole Dred Scott decision. They
add that if Congress cannot do so itself, Congress cannot confer any
power to do so; and hence any effort by the Territorial Legislature
to do either of these things is absolutely decided against. It is a
foregone conclusion by that court.
Now, as to this indirect mode by "unfriendly legislation," all
lawyers here will readily understand that such a proposition cannot
be tolerated for a moment, because a legislature cannot indirectly do
that which it cannot accomplish directly. Then I say any legislation
to control this property, as property, for its benefit as property,
would be hailed by this Dred Scott Supreme Court, and fully
sustained; but any legislation driving slave property out, or
destroying it as property, directly or indirectly, will most
assuredly, by that court, be held unconstitutional.
Judge Douglas says if the Constitution carries slavery into the
Territories, beyond the power of the people of the Territories to
control it as other property; then it follows logically that every
one who swears to support the Constitution of the United States must
give that support to that property which it needs. And, if the
Constitution carries slavery into the Territories, beyond the power
of the people, to control it as other property, then it also carries
it into the States, because the Constitution is the supreme law of
the land. Now, gentlemen, if it were not for my excessive modesty, I
would say that I told that very thing to Judge Douglas quite a year
ago. This argument is here in print, and if it were not for my
modesty, as I said, I might call your attention to it. If you read
it, you will find that I not only made that argument, but made it
better than he has made it since.
There is, however, this difference: I say now, and said then, there
is no sort of question that the Supreme Court has decided that it is
the right of the slave holder to take his slave and hold him in the
Territory; and saying this, judge Douglas himself admits the
conclusion. He says if that is so, this consequence will follow; and
because this consequence would follow, his argument is, the decision
cannot, therefore, be that way,--" that would spoil my popular
sovereignty; and it cannot be possible that this great principle has
been squelched out in this extraordinary way. It might be, if it
were not for the extraordinary consequences of spoiling my humbug."
Another feature of the judge's argument about the Dred Scott case is,
an effort to show that that decision deals altogether in declarations
of negatives; that the Constitution does not affirm anything as
expounded by the Dred Scott decision, but it only declares a want of
power a total absence of power, in reference to the Territories. It
seems to be his purpose to make the whole of that decision to result
in a mere negative declaration of a want of power in Congress to do
anything in relation to this matter in the Territories. I know the
opinion of the Judges states that there is a total absence of power;
but that is, unfortunately; not all it states: for the judges add
that the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly
affirmed in the Constitution. It does not stop at saying that the
right of property in a slave is recognized in the Constitution, is
declared to exist somewhere in the Constitution, but says it is
affirmed in the Constitution. Its language is equivalent to saying
that it is embodied and so woven in that instrument that it cannot be
detached without breaking the Constitution itself. In a word, it is
part of the Constitution.
Douglas is singularly unfortunate in his effort to make out that
decision to be altogether negative, when the express language at the
vital part is that this is distinctly affirmed in the Constitution.
I think myself, and I repeat it here, that this decision does not
merely carry slavery into the Territories, but by its logical
conclusion it carries it into the States in which we live. One
provision of that Constitution is, that it shall be the supreme law
of the land,--I do not quote the language,--any constitution or law
of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. This Dred Scott
decision says that the right of property in a slave is affirmed in
that Constitution which is the supreme law of the land, any State
constitution or law notwithstanding. Then I say that to destroy a
thing which is distinctly affirmed and supported by the supreme law
of the land, even by a State constitution or law, is a violation of
that supreme law, and there is no escape from it. In my judgment
there is no avoiding that result, save that the American people shall
see that constitutions are better construed than our Constitution is
construed in that decision. They must take care that it is more
faithfully and truly carried out than it is there expounded.
I must hasten to a conclusion. Near the beginning of my remarks I
said that this insidious Douglas popular sovereignty is the measure
that now threatens the purpose of the Republican party to prevent
slavery from being nationalized in the United States. I propose to
ask your attention for a little while to some propositions in
affirmance of that statement. Take it just as it stands, and apply
it as a principle; extend and apply that principle elsewhere; and
consider where it will lead you. I now put this proposition, that
Judge Douglas's popular sovereignty applied will reopen the African
slave trade; and I will demonstrate it by any variety of ways in
which you can turn the subject or look at it.
The Judge says that the people of the Territories have the right, by
his principle, to have slaves, if they want them. Then I say that
the people in Georgia have the right to buy slaves in Africa, if they
want them; and I defy any man on earth to show any distinction
between the two things,--to show that the one is either more wicked
or more unlawful; to show, on original principles, that one is better
or worse than the other; or to show, by the Constitution, that one
differs a whit from the other. He will tell me, doubtless, that
there is no constitutional provision against people taking slaves
into the new Territories, and I tell him that there is equally no
constitutional provision against buying slaves in Africa. He will
tell you that a people, in the exercise of popular sovereignty, ought
to do as they please about that thing, and have slaves if they want
them; and I tell you that the people of Georgia are as much entitled
to popular sovereignty and to buy slaves in Africa, if they want
them, as the people of the Territory are to have slaves if they want
them. I ask any man, dealing honestly with himself, to point out a
distinction.
I have recently seen a letter of Judge Douglas's in which, without
stating that to be the object, he doubtless endeavors to make a
distinction between the two. He says he is unalterably opposed to
the repeal of the laws against the African slave trade. And why? He
then seeks to give a reason that would not apply to his popular
sovereignty in the Territories. What is that reason? "The abolition
of the African slave trade is a compromise of the Constitution!" I
deny it. There is no truth in the proposition that the abolition of
the African slave trade is a compromise of the Constitution. No man
can put his finger on anything in the Constitution, or on the line of
history, which shows it. It is a mere barren assertion, made simply
for the purpose of getting up a distinction between the revival of
the African slave trade and his "great principle."
At the time the Constitution of the United States was adopted, it was
expected that the slave trade would be abolished. I should assert and
insist upon that, if judge Douglas denied it. But I know that it was
equally expected that slavery would be excluded from the Territories,
and I can show by history that in regard to these two things public
opinion was exactly alike, while in regard to positive action, there
was more done in the Ordinance of '87 to resist the spread of slavery
than was ever done to abolish the foreign slave trade. Lest I be
misunderstood, I say again that at the time of the formation of the
Constitution, public expectation was that the slave trade would be
abolished, but no more so than the spread of slavery in the
Territories should be restrained. They stand alike, except that in
the Ordinance of '87 there was a mark left by public opinion, showing
that it was more committed against the spread of slavery in the
Territories than against the foreign slave trade.
Compromise! What word of compromise was there about it? Why, the
public sense was then in favor of the abolition of the slave trade;
but there was at the time a very great commercial interest involved
in it, and extensive capital in that branch of trade. There were
doubtless the incipient stages of improvement in the South in the way
of farming, dependent on the slave trade, and they made a proposition
to Congress to abolish the trade after allowing it twenty years,--a
sufficient time for the capital and commerce engaged in it to be
transferred to other channel. They made no provision that it should
be abolished in twenty years; I do not doubt that they expected it
would be, but they made no bargain about it. The public sentiment
left no doubt in the minds of any that it would be done away. I
repeat, there is nothing in the history of those times in favor of
that matter being a compromise of the constitution. It was the
public expectation at the time, manifested in a thousand ways, that
the spread of slavery should also be restricted.
Then I say, if this principle is established, that there is no wrong
in slavery, and whoever wants it has a right to have it, is a matter
of dollars and cents, a sort of question as to how they shall deal
with brutes, that between us and the negro here there is no sort of
question, but that at the South the question is between the negro and
the crocodile, that is all, it is a mere matter of policy, there is a
perfect right, according to interest, to do just as you please,--when
this is done, where this doctrine prevails, the miners and sappers
will have formed public opinion for the slave trade. They will be
ready for Jeff. Davis and Stephens and other leaders of that company
to sound the bugle for the revival of the slave trade, for the second
Dred Scott decision, for the flood of slavery to be poured over the
free States, while we shall be here tied down and helpless and run
over like sheep.
It is to be a part and parcel of this same idea to say to men who
want to adhere to the Democratic party, who have always belonged to
that party, and are only looking about for some excuse to stick to
it, but nevertheless hate slavery, that Douglas's popular sovereignty
is as good a way as any to oppose slavery. They allow themselves to
be persuaded easily, in accordance with their previous dispositions,
into this belief, that it is about as good a way of opposing slavery
as any, and we can do that without straining our old party ties or
breaking up old political associations. We can do so without being
called negro-worshipers. We can do that without being subjected to
the jibes and sneers that are so readily thrown out in place of
argument where no arguement can be found. So let us stick to this
popular sovereignty,--this insidious popular sovereignty.
Now let me call your attention to one thing that has really happened,
which shows this gradual and steady debauching of public opinion,
this course of preparation for the revival of the slave trade, for
the Territorial slave code, and the new Dred Scott decision that is
to carry slavery into the Free States. Did you ever, five years ago,
hear of anybody in the world saying that the negro had no share in
the Declaration of National Independence; that it does not mean
negroes at all; and when "all men" were spoken of, negroes were not
included?
I am satisfied that five years ago that proposition was not put upon
paper by any living being anywhere. I have been unable at any time
to find a man in an audience who would declare that he had ever known
of anybody saying so five years ago. But last year there was not a
Douglas popular sovereign in Illinois who did not say it. Is there
one in Ohio but declares his firm belief that the Declaration of
Independence did not mean negroes at all? I do not know how this is;
I have not been here much; but I presume you are very much alike
everywhere. Then I suppose that all now express the belief that the
Declaration of Independence never did mean negroes. I call upon one
of them to say that he said it five years ago.
If you think that now, and did not think it then, the next thing that
strikes me is to remark that there has been a change wrought in you,-
-and a very significant change it is, being no less than changing the
negro, in your estimation, from the rank of a man to that of a brute.
They are taking him down and placing him, when spoken of, among
reptiles and crocodiles, as Judge Douglas himself expresses it.
Is not this change wrought in your minds a very important change?
Public opinion in this country is everything. In a nation like ours,
this popular sovereignty and squatter sovereignty have already
wrought a change in the public mind to the extent I have stated.
There is no man in this crowd who can contradict it.
Now, if you are opposed to slavery honestly, as much as anybody, I
ask you to note that fact, and the like of which is to follow, to be
plastered on, layer after layer, until very soon you are prepared to
deal with the negro every where as with the brute. If public
sentiment has not been debauched already to this point, a new turn of
the screw in that direction is all that is wanting; and this is
constantly being done by the teachers of this insidious popular
sovereignty. You need but one or two turns further, until your
minds, now ripening under these teachings, will be ready for all
these things, and you will receive and support, or submit to, the
slave trade, revived with all its horrors, a slave code enforced in
our Territories, and a new Dred Scott decision to bring slavery up
into the very heart of the free North. This, I must say, is but
carrying out those words prophetically spoken by Mr. Clay,--many,
many years ago,--I believe more than thirty years, when he told an
audience that if they would repress all tendencies to liberty and
ultimate emancipation they must go back to the era of our
independence, and muzzle the cannon which thundered its annual joyous
return on the Fourth of July; they must blow out the moral lights
around us; they must penetrate the human soul, and eradicate the love
of liberty: but until they did these things, and others eloquently
enumerated by him, they could not repress all tendencies to ultimate
emancipation.
I ask attention to the fact that in a pre-eminent degree these
popular sovereigns are at this work: blowing out the moral lights
around us; teaching that the negro is no longer a man, but a brute;
that the Declaration has nothing to do with him; that he ranks with
the crocodile and the reptile; that man, with body and soul, is a
matter of dollars and cents. I suggest to this portion of the Ohio
Republicans, or Democrats, if there be any present, the serious
consideration of this fact that there is now going on among you a
steady process of debauching public opinion on this subject. With
this, my friends, I bid you adieu.
SPEECH AT CINCINNATI OHIO, SEPTEMBER 17, 1859
My Fellow-Citizens of the State of Ohio: This is the first time in
my life that I have appeared before an audience in so great a city as
this: I therefore--though I am no longer a young man--make this
appearance under some degree of embarrassment. But I have found that
when one is embarrassed, usually the shortest way to get through with
it is to quit talking or thinking about it, and go at something else.
I understand that you have had recently with you my very
distinguished friend Judge Douglas, of Illinois; and I understand,
without having had an opportunity (not greatly sought, to be sure) of
seeing a report of the speech that he made here, that he did me the
honor to mention my humble name. I suppose that he did so for the
purpose of making some objection to some sentiment at some time
expressed by me. I should expect, it is true, that judge Douglas had
reminded you, or informed you, if you had never before heard it, that
I had once in my life declared it as my opinion that this government
cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free; that a house
divided against itself cannot stand, and, as I had expressed it, I
did not expect the house to fall, that I did not expect the Union to
be dissolved, but that I did expect that it would cease to be
divided, that it would become all one thing, or all the other; that
either the opponents of slavery would arrest the further spread of
it, and place it where the public mind would rest in the belief that
it was in the course of ultimate extinction, or the friends of
slavery will push it forward until it becomes alike lawful in all the
States, old or new, free as well as slave. I did, fifteen months ago,
express that opinion, and upon many occasions Judge Douglas has
denounced it, and has greatly, intentionally or unintentionally,
misrepresented my purpose in the expression of that opinion.
I presume, without having seen a report of his speech, that he did so
here. I presume that he alluded also to that opinion, in different
language, having been expressed at a subsequent time by Governor
Seward of New York, and that he took the two in a lump and denounced
them; that he tried to point out that there was something couched in
this opinion which led to the making of an entire uniformity of the
local institutions of the various States of the Union, in utter
disregard of the different States, which in their nature would seem
to require a variety of institutions and a variety of laws,
conforming to the differences in the nature of the different States.
Not only so: I presume he insisted that this was a declaration of war
between the free and slave States, that it was the sounding to the
onset of continual war between the different States, the slave and
free States.
This charge, in this form, was made by Judge Douglas on, I believe,
the 9th of July, 1858, in Chicago, in my hearing. On the next
evening, I made some reply to it. I informed him that many of the
inferences he drew from that expression of mine were altogether
foreign to any purpose entertained by me, and in so far as he should
ascribe these inferences to me, as my purpose, he was entirely
mistaken; and in so far as he might argue that, whatever might be my
purpose, actions conforming to my views would lead to these results,
he might argue and establish if he could; but, so far as purposes
were concerned, he was totally mistaken as to me.
When I made that reply to him, I told him, on the question of
declaring war between the different States of the Union, that I had
not said that I did not expect any peace upon this question until
slavery was exterminated; that I had only said I expected peace when
that institution was put where the public mind should rest in the
belief that it was in course of ultimate extinction; that I believed,
from the organization of our government until a very recent period of
time, the institution had been placed and continued upon such a
basis; that we had had comparative peace upon that question through a
portion of that period of time, only because the public mind rested
in that belief in regard to it, and that when we returned to that
position in relation to that matter, I supposed we should again have
peace as we previously had. I assured him, as I now, assure you, that
I neither then had, nor have, or ever had, any purpose in any way of
interfering with the institution of slavery, where it exists. I
believe we have no power, under the Constitution of the United
States, or rather under the form of government under which we live,
to interfere with the institution of slavery, or any other of the
institutions of our sister States, be they free or slave States. I
declared then, and I now re-declare, that I have as little
inclination to interfere with the institution of slavery where it now
exists, through the instrumentality of the General Government, or any
other instrumentality, as I believe we have no power to do so. I
accidentally used this expression: I had no purpose of entering into
the slave States to disturb the institution of slavery. So, upon the
first occasion that Judge Douglas got an opportunity to reply to me,
he passed by the whole body of what I had said upon that subject, and
seized upon the particular expression of mine that I had no purpose
of entering into the slave States to disturb the institution of
slavery. "Oh, no," said he, "he [Lincoln] won't enter into the slave
States to disturb the institution of slavery, he is too prudent a man
to do such a thing as that; he only means that he will go on to the
line between the free and slave States, and shoot over at them. This
is all he means to do. He means to do them all the harm he can, to
disturb them all he can, in such a way as to keep his own hide in
perfect safety."
Well, now, I did not think, at that time, that that was either a very
dignified or very logical argument but so it was, I had to get along
with it as well as I could.
It has occurred to-me here to-night that if I ever do shoot over the
line at the people on the other side of the line into a slave State,
and purpose to do so, keeping my skin safe, that I have now about the
best chance I shall ever have. I should not wonder if there are some
Kentuckians about this audience--we are close to Kentucky; and
whether that be so or not, we are on elevated ground, and, by
speaking distinctly, I should not wonder if some of the Kentuckians
would hear me on the other side of the river. For that reason I
propose to address a portion of what I have to say to the
Kentuckians.
I say, then, in the first place, to the Kentuckians, that I am what
they call, as I understand it, a "Black Republican." I think slavery
is wrong, morally and politically. I desire that it should be no
further spread in--these United States, and I should not object if it
should gradually terminate in the whole Union. While I say this for
myself, I say to you Kentuckians that I understand you differ
radically with me upon this proposition; that you believe slavery is
a good thing; that slavery is right; that it ought to be extended and
perpetuated in this Union. Now, there being this broad difference
between us, I do not pretend, in addressing myself to you
Kentuckians, to attempt proselyting you; that would be a vain effort.
I do not enter upon it. I only propose to try to show you that you
ought to nominate for the next Presidency, at Charleston, my
distinguished friend Judge Douglas. In all that there is a
difference between you and him, I understand he is sincerely for you,
and more wisely for you than you are for yourselves. I will try to
demonstrate that proposition. Understand, now, I say that I believe
he is as sincerely for you, and more wisely for you, than you are for
yourselves.
What do you want more than anything else to make successful your
views of slavery,--to advance the outspread of it, and to secure and
perpetuate the nationality of it? What do you want more than
anything else? What--is needed absolutely? What is indispensable to
you? Why, if I may, be allowed to answer the question, it is to
retain a hold upon the North, it is to retain support and strength
from the free States. If you can get this support and strength from
the free States, you can succeed. If you do not get this support and
this strength from the free States, you are in the minority, and you
are beaten at once.
If that proposition be admitted,--and it is undeniable,--then the
next thing I say to you is, that Douglas, of all the men in this
nation, is the only man that affords you any hold upon the free
States; that no other man can give you any strength in the free
States. This being so, if you doubt the other branch of the
proposition, whether he is for you--whether he is really for you, as
I have expressed it,--I propose asking your attention for a while to
a few facts.
The issue between you and me, understand, is, that I think slavery is
wrong, and ought not to be outspread; and you think it is right, and
ought to be extended and perpetuated. [A voice, "Oh, Lord!"] That is
my Kentuckian I am talking to now.
I now proceed to try to show you that Douglas is as sincerely for you
and more wisely for you than you are for yourselves.
In the first place, we know that in a government like this, in a
government of the people, where the voice of all the men of the
country, substantially, enters into the execution--or administration,
rather--of the government, in such a government, what lies at the
bottom of all of it is public opinion. I lay down the proposition,
that Judge Douglas is not only the man that promises you in advance a
hold upon the North, and support in the North, but he constantly
moulds public opinion to your ends; that in every possible way he can
he constantly moulds the public opinion of the North to your ends;
and if there are a few things in which he seems to be against you,-
-a, few things which he says that appear to be against you, and a few
that he forbears to say which you would like to have him say you
ought to remember that the saying of the one, or the forbearing to
say the other, would lose his hold upon the North, and, by
consequence, would lose his capacity to serve you.
Upon this subject of moulding public opinion I call your attention to
the fact--for a well established fact it is--that the Judge never
says your institution of slavery is wrong. There is not a public man
in the United States, I believe, with the exception of Senator
Douglas, who has not, at some time in his life, declared his opinion
whether the thing is right or wrong; but Senator Douglas never
declares it is wrong. He leaves himself at perfect liberty to do all
in your favor which he would be hindered from doing if he were to
declare the thing to be wrong. On the contrary, he takes all the
chances that he has for inveigling the sentiment of the North,
opposed to slavery, into your support, by never saying it is right.
This you ought to set down to his credit: You ought to give him full
credit for this much; little though it be, in comparison to the whole
which he does for you.
Some other, things I will ask your attention to. He said upon the
floor of the United States Senate, and he has repeated it, as I
understand, a great many times, that he does not care whether slavery
is "voted up or voted down." This again shows you, or ought to show
you, if you would reason upon it, that he does not believe it to be
wrong; for a man may say when he sees nothing wrong in a thing; that
he, dues not care whether it be voted up or voted down but no man can
logically say that he cares not whether a thing goes up or goes down
which to him appears to be wrong. You therefore have a demonstration
in this that to Judge Douglas's mind your favorite institution, which
you would have spread out and made perpetual, is no wrong.
Another thing he tells you, in a speech made at Memphis in Tennessee,
shortly after the canvass in Illinois, last year. He there
distinctly told the people that there was a "line drawn by the
Almighty across this continent, on the one side of which the soil
must always be cultivated by slaves"; that he did not pretend to know
exactly where that line was, but that there was such a line. I want
to ask your attention to that proposition again; that there is one
portion of this continent where the Almighty has signed the soil
shall always be cultivated by slaves; that its being cultivated by
slaves at that place is right; that it has the direct sympathy and
authority of the Almighty. Whenever you can get these Northern
audiences to adopt the opinion that slavery is right on the other
side of the Ohio, whenever you can get them, in pursuance of
Douglas's views, to adopt that sentiment, they will very readily make
the other argument, which is perfectly logical, that that which is
right on that side of the Ohio cannot be wrong on this, and that if
you have that property on that side of the Ohio, under the seal and
stamp of the Almighty, when by any means it escapes over here it is
wrong to have constitutions and laws "to devil" you about it. So
Douglas is moulding the public opinion of the North, first to say
that the thing is right in your State over the Ohio River, and hence
to say that that which is right there is not wrong here, and that all
laws and constitutions here recognizing it as being wrong are
themselves wrong, and ought to be repealed and abrogated. He will
tell you, men of Ohio, that if you choose here to have laws against
slavery, it is in conformity to the idea that your climate is not
suited to it, that your climate is not suited to slave labor, and
therefore you have constitutions and laws against it.
Let us attend to that argument for a little while and see if it be
sound. You do not raise sugar-cane (except the new-fashioned
sugar-cane, and you won't raise that long), but they do raise it in
Louisiana. You don't raise it in Ohio, because you can't raise it
profitably, because the climate don't suit it. They do raise it in
Louisiana, because there it is profitable. Now, Douglas will tell
you that is precisely the slavery question: that they do have slaves
there because they are profitable, and you don't have them here
because they are not profitable. If that is so, then it leads to
dealing with the one precisely as with the other. Is there, then,
anything in the constitution or laws of Ohio against raising
sugar-cane? Have you found it necessary to put any such provision in
your law? Surely not! No man desires to raise sugar-cane in Ohio,
but if any man did desire to do so, you would say it was a tyrannical
law that forbids his doing so; and whenever you shall agree with
Douglas, whenever your minds are brought to adopt his argument, as
surely you will have reached the conclusion that although it is not
profitable in Ohio, if any man wants it, is wrong to him not to let
him have it.
In this matter Judge Douglas is preparing the public mind for you of
Kentucky to make perpetual that good thing in your estimation, about
which you and I differ.
In this connection, let me ask your attention to another thing. I
believe it is safe to assert that five years ago no living man had
expressed the opinion that the negro had no share in the Declaration
of Independence. Let me state that again: five years ago no living
man had expressed the opinion that the negro had no share in the
Declaration of Independence. If there is in this large audience any
man who ever knew of that opinion being put upon paper as much as
five years ago, I will be obliged to him now or at a subsequent time
to show it.
If that be true I wish you then to note the next fact: that within
the space of five years Senator Douglas, in the argument of this
question, has got his entire party, so far as I know, without
exception, in saying that the negro has no share in the Declaration
of Independence. If there be now in all these United States one
Douglas man that does not say this, I have been unable upon any
occasion to scare him up. Now, if none of you said this five years
ago, and all of you say it now, that is a matter that you Kentuckians
ought to note. That is a vast change in the Northern public
sentiment upon that question.
Of what tendency is that change? The tendency of that change is to
bring the public mind to the conclusion that when men are spoken of,
the negro is not meant; that when negroes are spoken of, brutes alone
are contemplated. That change in public sentiment has already
degraded the black man in the estimation of Douglas and his followers
from the condition of a man of some sort, and assigned him to the
condition of a brute. Now, you Kentuckians ought to give Douglas
credit for this. That is the largest possible stride that can be
made in regard to the perpetuation of your thing of slavery.
A voice: Speak to Ohio men, and not to Kentuckians!
Mr. LINCOLN: I beg permission to speak as I please.
In Kentucky perhaps, in many of the slave States certainly, you are
trying to establish the rightfulness of slavery by reference to the
Bible. You are trying to show that slavery existed in the Bible
times by divine ordinance. Now, Douglas is wiser than you, for your
own benefit, upon that subject. Douglas knows that whenever you
establish that slavery was--right by the Bible, it will occur that
that slavery was the slavery of the white man, of men without
reference to color; and he knows very well that you may entertain
that idea in Kentucky as much as you please, but you will never win
any Northern support upon it. He makes a wiser argument for you: he
makes the argument that the slavery of the black man; the slavery of
the man who has a skin of a different color from your own, is right.
He thereby brings to your support Northern voters who could not for a
moment be brought by your own argument of the Bible right of slavery.
Will you give him credit for that? Will you not say that in this
matter he is more wisely for you than you are for yourselves?
Now, having established with his entire party this doctrine, having
been entirely successful in that branch of his efforts in your
behalf, he is ready for another.
At this same meeting at Memphis he declared that in all contests
between the negro and the white man he was for the white man, but
that in all questions between the negro and the crocodile he was for
the negro. He did not make that declaration accidentally at Memphis.
He made it a great many times in the canvass in Illinois last year
(though I don't know that it was reported in any of his speeches
there, but he frequently made it). I believe he repeated it at
Columbus, and I should not wonder if be repeated it here. It is,
then, a deliberate way of expressing himself upon that subject. It
is a matter of mature deliberation with him thus to express himself
upon that point of his case. It therefore requires deliberate
attention.
The first inference seems to be that if you do not enslave the negro,
you are wronging the white man in some way or other, and that whoever
is opposed to the negro being enslaved, is, in some way or other,
against the white man. Is not that a falsehood? If there was a
necessary conflict between the white man and the negro, I should be
for the white man as much as Judge Douglas; but I say there is no
such necessary conflict. I say that there is room enough for us all
to be free, and that it not only does not wrong the white man that
the negro should be free, but it positively wrongs the mass of the
white men that the negro should be enslaved; that the mass of white
men are really injured by the effects of slave labor in the vicinity
of the fields of their own labor.
But I do not desire to dwell upon this branch of the question more
than to say that this assumption of his is false, and I do hope that
that fallacy will not long prevail in the minds of intelligent white
men. At all events, you ought to thank Judge Douglas for it; it is
for your benefit it is made.
The other branch of it is, that in the struggle between the negro and
the crocodile; he is for the negro. Well, I don't know that there is
any struggle between the negro and the crocodile, either. I suppose
that if a crocodile (or, as we old Ohio River boatmen used to call
them, alligators) should come across a white man, he would kill him
if he could; and so he would a negro. But what, at last, is this
proposition? I believe it is a sort of proposition in proportion,
which may be stated thus: "As the negro is to the white man, so is
the crocodile to the negro; and as the negro may rightfully treat the
crocodile as a beast or reptile, so the white man may rightfully
treat the negro as a beast or a reptile." That is really the "knip"
of all that argument of his.
Now, my brother Kentuckians, who believe in this, you ought to thank
Judge Douglas for having put that in a much more taking way than any
of yourselves have done.
Again, Douglas's great principle, "popular sovereignty," as he calls
it, gives you, by natural consequence, the revival of the slave trade
whenever you want it. If you question this, listen awhile, consider
awhile what I shall advance in support of that proposition.
He says that it is the sacred right of the man who goes into the
Territories to have slavery if he wants it. Grant that for
argument's sake. Is it not the sacred right of the man who don't go
there equally to buy slaves in Africa, if he wants them? Can you
point out the difference? The man who goes into the Territories of
Kansas and Nebraska, or any other new Territory, with the sacred
right of taking a slave there which belongs to him, would certainly
have no more right to take one there than I would, who own no slave,
but who would desire to buy one and take him there. You will not say
you, the friends of Judge Douglas but that the man who does not own a
slave has an equal right to buy one and take him to the Territory as
the other does.
A voice: I want to ask a question. Don't foreign nations interfere
with the slave trade?
Mr. LINCOLN: Well! I understand it to be a principle of Democracy to
whip foreign nations whenever, they interfere with us.
Voice: I only asked for information. I am a Republican myself.
Mr. LINCOLN: You and I will be on the best terms in the world, but
I do not wish to be diverted from the point I was trying to press.
I say that Douglas's popular sovereignty, establishing his sacred
right in the people, if you please, if carried to its logical
conclusion gives equally the sacred right to the people of the States
or the Territories themselves to buy slaves wherever they can buy
them cheapest; and if any man can show a distinction, I should like
to hear him try it. If any man can show how the people of Kansas
have a better right to slaves, because they want them, than the
people of Georgia have to buy them in Africa, I want him to do it.
I think it cannot be done. If it is "popular sovereignty" for the
people to have slaves because they want them, it is popular
sovereignty for them to buy them in Africa because they desire to do
so.
I know that Douglas has recently made a little effort, not seeming to
notice that he had a different theory, has made an effort to get rid
of that. He has written a letter, addressed to somebody, I believe,
who resides in Iowa, declaring his opposition to the repeal of the
laws that prohibit the Africa slave trade. He bases his opposition
to such repeal upon the ground that these laws are themselves one of
the compromises of the Constitution of the United States. Now, it
would be very interesting to see Judge Douglas or any of his friends
turn, to the Constitution of the United States and point out that
compromise, to show where there is any compromise in the
Constitution, or provision in the Constitution; express or implied,
by which the administrators of that Constitution are under any
obligation to repeal the African slave trade. I know, or at least I
think I know, that the framers of that Constitution did expect the
African slave trade would be abolished at the end of twenty years, to
which time their prohibition against its being abolished extended.
there is abundant contemporaneous history to show that the framers of
the Constitution expected it to be abolished. But while they so
expected, they gave nothing for that expectation, and they put no
provision in the Constitution requiring it should be so abolished.
The migration or importation of such persons as the States shall see
fit to admit shall not be prohibited, but a certain tax might be
levied upon such importation. But what was to be done after that
time? The Constitution is as silent about that as it is silent,
personally, about myself. There is absolutely nothing in it about
that subject; there is only the expectation of the framers of the
Constitution that the slave trade would be abolished at the end of
that time; and they expected it would be abolished, owing to public
sentiment, before that time; and the put that provision in, in order
that it should not be abolished before that time, for reasons which I
suppose they thought to be sound ones, but which I will not now try
to enumerate before you.
But while, they expected the slave trade would be abolished at that
time, they expected that the spread of slavery into the new
Territories should also be restricted. It is as easy to prove that
the framers of the Constitution of the United States expected that
slavery should be prohibited from extending into the new Territories,
as it is to prove that it was expected that the slave trade should be
abolished. Both these things were expected. One was no more
expected than the other, and one was no more a compromise of the
Constitution than the other. There was nothing said in the
Constitution in regard to the spread of slavery into the Territory.
I grant that; but there was something very important said about it by
the same generation of men in the adoption of the old Ordinance of
'87, through the influence of which you here in Ohio, our neighbors
in Indiana, we in Illinois, our neighbors in Michigan and Wisconsin,
are happy, prosperous, teeming millions of free men. That generation
of men, though not to the full extent members of the convention that
framed the Constitution, were to some extent members of that
convention, holding seats at the same time in one body and the other,
so that if there was any compromise on either of these subjects, the
strong evidence is that that compromise was in favor of the
restriction of slavery from the new Territories.
But Douglas says that he is unalterably opposed to the repeal of
those laws because, in his view, it is a compromise of the
Constitution. You Kentuckians, no doubt, are somewhat offended with
that. You ought not to be! You ought to be patient! You ought to
know that if he said less than that, he would lose the power of
"lugging" the Northern States to your support. Really, what you
would push him to do would take from him his entire power to serve
you. And you ought to remember how long, by precedent, Judge Douglas
holds himself obliged to stick by compromises. You ought to remember
that by the time you yourselves think you are ready to inaugurate
measures for the revival of the African slave trade, that sufficient
time will have arrived, by precedent, for Judge Douglas to break
through, that compromise. He says now nothing more strong than he
said in 1849 when he declared in favor of Missouri Compromise,--and
precisely four years and a quarter after he declared that Compromise
to be a sacred thing, which "no ruthless hand would ever daze to
touch," he himself brought forward the measure ruthlessly to destroy
it. By a mere calculation of time it will only be four years more
until he is ready to take back his profession about the sacredness of
the Compromise abolishing the slave trade. Precisely as soon as you
are ready to have his services in that direction, by fair
calculation, you may be sure of having them.
But you remember and set down to Judge Douglas's debt, or discredit,
that he, last year, said the people of Territories can, in spite of
the Dred Scott decision, exclude your slaves from those Territories;
that he declared, by "unfriendly legislation" the extension of your
property into the new Territories may be cut off, in the teeth of the
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.
He assumed that position at Freeport on the 27th of August, 1858. He
said that the people of the Territories can exclude slavery, in so
many words: You ought, however, to bear in mind that he has never
said it since. You may hunt in every speech that he has since made,
and he has never used that expression once. He has never seemed to
notice that he is stating his views differently from what he did
then; but by some sort of accident, he has always really stated it
differently. He has always since then declared that "the
Constitution does not carry slavery into the Territories of the
United States beyond the power of the people legally to control it,
as other property." Now, there is a difference in the language used
upon that former occasion and in this latter day. There may or may
not be a difference in the meaning, but it is worth while considering
whether there is not also a difference in meaning.
What is it to exclude? Why, it is to drive it out. It is in some
way to put it out of the Territory. It is to force it across the
line, or change its character so that, as property, it is out of
existence. But what is the controlling of it "as other property"?
Is controlling it as other property the same thing as destroying it,
or driving it away? I should think not. I should think the
controlling of it as other property would be just about what you in
Kentucky should want. I understand the controlling of property means
the controlling of it for the benefit of the owner of it. While I
have no doubt the Supreme Court of the United States would say "God
speed" to any of the Territorial Legislatures that should thus
control slave property, they would sing quite a different tune if, by
the pretence of controlling it, they were to undertake to pass laws
which virtually excluded it,--and that upon a very well known
principle to all lawyers, that what a Legislature cannot directly do,
it cannot do by indirection; that as the Legislature has not the
power to drive slaves out, they have no power, by indirection, by
tax, or by imposing burdens in any way on that property, to effect
the same end, and that any attempt to do so would be held by the Dred
Scott court unconstitutional.
Douglas is not willing to stand by his first proposition that they
can exclude it, because we have seen that that proposition amounts to
nothing more nor less than the naked absurdity that you may lawfully
drive out that which has a lawful right to remain. He admitted at
first that the slave might be lawfully taken into the Territories
under the Constitution of the United States, and yet asserted that he
might be lawfully driven out. That being the proposition, it is the
absurdity I have stated. He is not willing to stand in the face of
that direct, naked, and impudent absurdity; he has, therefore,
modified his language into that of being "controlled as other
property."
The Kentuckians don't like this in Douglas! I will tell you where it
will go. He now swears by the court. He was once a leading man in
Illinois to break down a court, because it had made a decision he did
not like. But he now not only swears by the court, the courts having
got to working for you, but he denounces all men that do not swear by
the courts, as unpatriotic, as bad citizens. When one of these acts
of unfriendly legislation shall impose such heavy burdens as to, in
effect, destroy property in slaves in a Territory, and show plainly
enough that there can be no mistake in the purpose of the Legislature
to make them so burdensome, this same Supreme Court will decide that
law to be unconstitutional, and he will be ready to say for your
benefit "I swear by the court; I give it up"; and while that is going
on he has been getting all his men to swear by the courts, and to
give it up with him. In this again he serves you faithfully, and, as
I say, more wisely than you serve yourselves.
Again: I have alluded in the beginning of these remarks to the fact
that Judge Douglas has made great complaint of my having expressed
the opinion that this government "cannot endure permanently, half
slave and half free." He has complained of Seward for using
different language, and declaring that there is an "irrepressible
conflict" between the principles of free and slave labor. [A voice:
" He says it is not original with Seward. That it is original with
Lincoln."] I will attend to that immediately, sir. Since that time,
Hickman of Pennsylvania expressed the same sentiment. He has never
denounced Mr. Hickman: why? There is a little chance,
notwithstanding that opinion in the mouth of Hickman, that he may yet
be a Douglas man. That is the difference! It is not unpatriotic to
hold that opinion if a man is a Douglas man.
But neither I, nor Seward, nor Hickman is entitled to the enviable or
unenviable distinction of having first expressed that idea. That
same idea was expressed by the Richmond Enquirer, in Virginia, in
1856,--quite two years before it was expressed by the first of us.
And while Douglas was pluming himself that in his conflict with my
humble self, last year, he had "squelched out" that fatal heresy, as
he delighted to call it, and had suggested that if he only had had a
chance to be in New York and meet Seward he would have "squelched" it
there also, it never occurred to him to breathe a word against Pryor.
I don't think that you can discover that Douglas ever talked of going
to Virginia to "squelch" out that idea there. No. More than that.
That same Roger A. Pryor was brought to Washington City and made the
editor of the par excellence Douglas paper, after making use of that
expression, which, in us, is so unpatriotic and heretical. From all
this, my Kentucky friends may see that this opinion is heretical in
his view only when it is expressed by men suspected of a desire that
the country shall all become free, and not when expressed by those
fairly known to entertain the desire that the whole country shall
become slave. When expressed by that class of men, it is in nowise
offensive to him. In this again, my friends of Kentucky, you have
Judge Douglas with you.
There is another reason why you Southern people ought to nominate
Douglas at your convention at Charleston. That reason is the
wonderful capaciity of the man,--the power he has of doing what would
seem to be impossible. Let me call your attention to one of these
apparently impossible things:
Douglas had three or four very distinguished men of the most extreme
anti-slavery views of any men in the Republican party expressing
their desire for his re-election to the Senate last year. That
would, of itself, have seemed to be a little wonderful; but that
wonder is heightened when we see that Wise of Virginia, a man exactly
opposed to them, a man who believes in the divine right of slavery,
was also expressing his desire that Douglas should be reelected; that
another man that may be said to be kindred to Wise, Mr. Breckinridge,
the Vice-President, and of your own State, was also agreeing with the
anti-slavery men in the North that Douglas ought to be re-elected.
Still to heighten the wonder, a senator from Kentucky, whom I have
always loved with an affection as tender and endearing as I have ever
loved any man, who was opposed to the anti-slavery men for reasons
which seemed sufficient to him, and equally opposed to Wise and
Breckinridge, was writing letters into Illinois to secure the
reelection of Douglas. Now, that all these conflicting elements
should be brought, while at daggers' points with one another, to
support him, is a feat that is worthy for you to note and consider.
It is quite probable that each of these classes of men thought, by
the re-election of Douglas, their peculiar views would gain
something: it is probable that the anti-slavery men thought their
views would gain something; that Wise and Breckinridge thought so
too, as regards their opinions; that Mr. Crittenden thought that his
views would gain something, although he was opposed to both these
other men. It is probable that each and all of them thought that
they were using Douglas; and it is yet an unsolved problem whether he
was not using them all. If he was, then it is for you to consider
whether that power to perform wonders is one for you lightly to throw
away.
There is one other thing that I will say to you, in this relation. It
is but my opinion, I give it to you without a fee. It is my opinion
that it is for you to take him or be defeated; and that if you do
take him you may be beaten. You will surely be beaten if you do not
take him. We, the Republicans and others forming the opposition of
the country, intend to "stand by our guns," to be patient and firm,
and in the long run to beat you, whether you take him or not. We
know that before we fairly beat you we have to beat you both
together. We know that you are "all of a feather," and that we have
to beat you all together, and we expect to do it. We don't intend to
be very impatient about it. We mean to be as deliberate and calm
about it as it is possible to be, but as firm and resolved as it is
possible for men to be. When we do as we say,--beat you,--you
perhaps want to know what we will do with you.
I will tell you, so far as I am authorized to speak for the
opposition, what we mean to do with you. We mean to treat you, as
near as we possibly can, as Washington, Jefferson, and Madison
treated you. We mean to leave you alone, and in no way interfere
with your institution; to abide by all and every compromise of the
Constitution, and, in a word, coming back to the original
proposition, to treat you, so far as degenerated men (if we have
degenerated) may, according to the examples of those noble fathers,
Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. We mean to remember that you are
as good as we; that there is no difference between us other than the
difference of circumstances. We mean to recognize and bear in mind
always that you have as good hearts in your bosoms as other people,
or as we claim to have, and treat you accordingly. We mean to marry
your girls when we have a chance, the white ones I mean; and I have
the honor to inform you that I once did have a chance in that way.
I have told you what we mean to do. I want to know, now, when that
thing takes place, what do you mean to do? I often hear it intimated
that you mean to divide the Union whenever a Republican, or anything
like it, is elected President of the United States. [A voice: "That
is so."] "That is so," one of them says; I wonder if he is a
Kentuckian? [A voice: "He is a Douglas man."] Well, then, I want to
know what you are going to do with your half of it? Are you going to
split the Ohio down through, and push your half off a piece? Or are
you going to keep it right alongside of us outrageous fellows? Or
are you going to build up a wall some way between your country and
ours, by which that movable property of yours can't come over here
any more, to the danger of your losing it? Do you think you can
better yourselves, on that subject, by leaving us here under no
obligation whatever to return those specimens of your movable
property that come hither? You have divided the Union because we
would not do right with you, as you think, upon that subject; when we
cease to be under obligations to do anything for you, how much better
off do you think you will be? Will you make war upon us and kill us
all? Why, gentlemen, I think you are as gallant and as brave men as
live; that you can fight as bravely in a good cause, man for man, as
any other people living; that you have shown yourselves capable of
this upon various occasions: but, man for man, you are not better
than we are, and there are not so many of you as there are of us. You
will never make much of a hand at whipping us. If we were fewer in
numbers than you, I think that you could whip us; if we were equal,
it would likely be a drawn battle; but being inferior in numbers, you
will make nothing by attempting to master us.
But perhaps I have addressed myself as long, or longer, to the
Kentuckians than I ought to have done, inasmuch as I have said that
whatever course you take we intend in the end to beat you. I propose
to address a few remarks to our friends, by way of discussing with
them the best means of keeping that promise that I have in good faith
made.
It may appear a little episodical for me to mention the topic of
which I will speak now. It is a favorite position of Douglas's that
the interference of the General Government, through the Ordinance of
'87, or through any other act of the General Government never has
made or ever can make a free State; the Ordinance of '87 did not make
free States of Ohio, Indiana, or Illinois; that these States are free
upon his "great principle" of popular sovereignty, because the people
of those several States have chosen to make them so. At Columbus,
and probably here, he undertook to compliment the people that they
themselves have made the State of Ohio free, and that the Ordinance
of '87 was not entitled in any degree to divide the honor with them.
I have no doubt that the people of the State of Ohio did make her
free according to their own will and judgment, but let the facts be
remembered.
In 1802, I believe, it was you who made your first constitution, with
the clause prohibiting slavery, and you did it, I suppose, very
nearly unanimously; but you should bear in mind that you--speaking of
you as one people--that you did so unembarrassed by the actual
presence of the, institution amongst you; that you made it a free
State not with the embarrassment upon you of already having among you
many slaves, which if they had been here, and you had sought to make
a free State, you would not know what to do with. If they had been
among you, embarrassing difficulties, most probably, would have
induced you to tolerate a slave constitution instead of a free one,
as indeed these very difficulties have constrained every people on
this continent who have adopted slavery.
Pray what was it that made you free? What kept you free? Did you
not find your country free when you came to decide that Ohio should
be a free State? It is important to inquire by what reason you found
it so. Let us take an illustration between the States of Ohio and
Kentucky. Kentucky is separated by this River Ohio, not a mile wide.
A portion of Kentucky, by reason of the course of the Ohio, is
farther north than this portion of Ohio, in which we now stand.
Kentucky is entirely covered with slavery; Ohio is entirely free from
it: What made that difference? Was it climate? No. A portion of
Kentucky was farther north than this portion of Ohio. Was it soil?
No. There is nothing in the soil of the one more favorable to slave
than the other. It was not climate or soil that mused one side of the
line to be entirely covered with slavery, and the other side free of
it. What was it? Study over it. Tell us, if you can, in all the
range of conjecture, if there be anything you can conceive of that
made that difference, other than that there was no law of any sort
keeping it out of Kentucky, while the Ordinance of '87 kept it out of
Ohio. If there is any other reason than this, I confess that it is
wholly beyond my power to conceive of it. This, then, I offer to
combat the idea that that Ordinance has never made any State free.
I don't stop at this illustration. I come to the State of Indiana;
and what I have said as between Kentucky and Ohio, I repeat as
between Indiana and Kentucky: it is equally applicable. One
additional argument is applicable also to Indiana. In her
Territorial condition she more than once petitioned Congress to
abrogate the Ordinance entirely, or at least so far as to suspend its
operation for a, time, in order that they should exercise the
"popular sovereignty" of having slaves if they wanted them. The men
then controlling the General Government, imitating the men of the
Revolution, refused Indiana that privilege. And so we have the
evidence that Indiana supposed she could have slaves, if it were not
for that Ordinance; that she besought Congress to put that barrier
out of the way; that Congress refused to do so; and it all ended at
last in Indiana being a free State. Tell me not then that the
Ordinance of '87 had nothing to do with making Indiana a free State,
when we find some men chafing against, and only restrained by, that
barrier.
Come down again to our State of Illinois. The great Northwest
Territory, including Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and
Wisconsin, was acquired first, I believe, by the British Government,
in part at least, from the French. Before the establishment of our
independence it became a part of Virginia, enabling Virginia
afterward to transfer it to the General Government. There were
French settlements in what is now Illinois, and at the same time
there were French settlements in what is now Missouri, in the tract
of country that was not purchased till about 1803. In these French
settlements negro slavery had existed for many years, perhaps more
than a hundred; if not as much as two hundred years,--at Kaskaskia,
in Illinois, and at St. Genevieve, or Cape Girardeau, perhaps, in
Missouri. The number of slaves was not very great, but there was
about the same number in each place. They were there when we
acquired the Territory. There was no effort made to break up the
relation of master and slave, and even the Ordinance of 1787 was not
so enforced as to destroy that slavery in Illinois; nor did the
Ordinance apply to Missouri at all.
What I want to ask your attention to; at this point, is that Illinois
and Missouri came into the Union about the same time, Illinois in the
latter part of 1818, and Missouri, after a struggle, I believe
sometime in 1820. They had been filling up with American people
about the same period of time; their progress enabling them to come
into the Union about the same time. At the end of that ten years, in
which they had been so preparing (for it was about that period of
time), the number of slaves in Illinois had actually decreased; while
in Missouri, beginning with very few, at the end of that ten years
there were about ten thousand. This being so, and it being
remembered that Missouri and Illinois are, to a certain extent, in
the same parallel of latitude, that the northern half of Missouri and
the southern half of Illinois are in the same parallel of latitude,
so that climate would have the same effect upon one as upon the
other, and that in the soil there is no material difference so far as
bears upon the question of slavery being settled upon one or the
other,--there being none of those natural causes to produce a
difference in filling them, and yet there being a broad difference to
their filling up, we are led again to inquire what was the cause of
that difference.
It is most natural to say that in Missouri there was no law to keep
that country from filling up with slaves, while in Illinois there was
the Ordinance of The Ordinance being there, slavery decreased during
that ten years; the Ordinance not being in the other, it increased
from a few to ten thousand. Can anybody doubt the reason of the
difference?
I think all these facts most abundantly prove that my friend Judge
Douglas's proposition, that the Ordinance of '87, or the national
restriction of slavery, never had a tendency to make a free State, is
a fallacy,--a proposition without the shadow or substance of truth
about it.
Douglas sometimes says that all the States (and it is part of this
same proposition I have been discussing) that have become free have
become so upon his "great principle"; that the State of Illinois
itself came into the Union as a slave State, and that the people,
upon the "great principle" of popular sovereignty, have since made it
a free State. Allow me but a little while to state to you what facts
there are to justify him in saying that Illinois came into the Union
as a slave State.
I have mentioned to you that there were a few old French slaves
there. They numbered, I think, one or two hundred. Besides that,
there had been a Territorial law for indenturing black persons.
Under that law, in violation of the Ordinance of '87, but without any
enforcement of the Ordinance to overthrow the system, there had been
a small number of slaves introduced as indentured persons. Owing to
this, the clause for the prohibition of slavery was slightly
modified. Instead of running like yours, that neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude, except for crime, of which the party shall
have been duly convicted, should exist in the State, they said that
neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should thereafter be
introduced; and that the children of indentured servants should be
born free; and nothing was said about the few old French slaves. Out
of this fact, that the clause for prohibiting slavery was modified
because of the actual presence of it, Douglas asserts again and again
that Illinois came into the Union as a slave State. How far the
facts sustain the conclusion that he draws, it is for intelligent and
impartial men to decide. I leave it with you, with these remarks,
worthy of being remembered, that that little thing, those few
indentured servants being there, was of itself sufficient to modify a
constitution made by a people ardently desiring to have a free
constitution; showing the power of the actual presence of the
institution of slavery to prevent any people, however anxious to make
a free State, from making it perfectly so.
I have been detaining you longer, perhaps, than I ought to do.
I am in some doubt whether to introduce another topic upon which I
could talk a while. [Cries of "Go on," and "Give us it."] It is this,
then: Douglas's Popular sovereignty, as a principle, is simply this:
If one man chooses to make a slave of another man, neither that man
nor anybody else has a right to object. Apply it to government, as
he seeks to apply it, and it is this: If, in a new Territory into
which a few people are beginning to enter for the purpose of making
their homes, they choose to either exclude slavery from their limits,
or to establish it there, however one or the other may affect the
persons to be enslaved, or the infinitely greater number of persons
who are afterward to inhabit that Territory, or the other members of
the family of communities of which they are but an incipient member,
or the general head of the family of States as parent of all, however
their action may affect one or the other of these, there is no power
or right to interfere. That is Douglas's popular sovereignty
applied. Now, I think that there is a real popular sovereignty in
the world. I think the definition of popular sovereignty, in the
abstract, would be about this: that each man shall do precisely as he
pleases with himself, and with all those things which exclusively
concern him. Applied in government, this principle would be that a
general government shall do all those things which pertain to it, and
all the local governments shall do precisely as they please in
respect to those matters which exclusively concern them.
Douglas looks upon slavery as so insignificant that the people must
decide that question for themselves; and yet they are not fit to
decide who shall be their governor, judge, or secretary, or who shall
be any of their officers. These are vast national matters in his
estimation; but the little matter in his estimation is that of
planting slavery there. That is purely of local interest, which
nobody should be allowed to say a word about.
Labor is the great source from which nearly all, if not all, human
comforts and necessities are drawn. There is a difference in opinion
about the elements of labor in society. Some men assume that there
is necessary connection between capital and labor, and that
connection draws within it the whole of the labor of the community.
They assume that nobody works unless capital excites them to work.
They begin next to consider what is the best way. They say there are
but two ways: one is to hire men, and to allure them to labor by
their consent; the other is to buy the men, and drive them, to it,
and that is slavery. Having assumed that, they proceed to discuss
the question of whether the laborers themselves are better off in the
condition of slaves or of hired laborers, and they usually decide
that they are better off in the condition of slaves.
In the first place, I say that the whole thing is a mistake. That
there is a certain relation between capital and labor, I admit. That
it does exist, and rightfully exists, I think is true. That men who
are industrious, and sober, and honest in the pursuit of their own
interests should after a while accumulate capital, and after that
should be allowed to enjoy it in peace, and also, if they should
choose, when they have accumulated it, to use it to save themselves
from actual labor, and hire other people to labor for them, is right.
In doing so they do not wrong the man they employ, for they find men
who have not of their own land to work upon, or shops to work in, and
who are benefited by working for others, hired laborers, receiving
their capital for it. Thus a few men, that own capital, hire a few
others, and these establish the relation of capital and labor
rightfully, a relation of which I make no complaint. But I insist
that that relation, after all, does not embrace more than one eighth
of the labor of the country.
[The speaker proceeded to argue that the hired laborer, with his
ability to become an employer, must have every precedence over him
who labors under the inducement of force. He continued:]
I have taken upon myself in the name of some of you to say that we
expect upon these principles to ultimately beat them. In order to do
so, I think we want and must have a national policy in regard to the
institution of slavery that acknowledges and deals with that
institution as being wrong. Whoever desires the prevention of the
spread of slavery and the nationalization of that institution yields
all when he yields to any policy that either recognizes slavery as
being right or as being an indifferent thing. Nothing will make you
successful but setting up a policy which shall treat the thing as
being wrong: When I say this, I do not mean to say that this General
Government is charged with the duty of redressing or preventing all
the wrongs in the world, but I do think that it is charged with
preventing and redressing all wrongs which are wrongs to itself.
This Government is expressly charged with the duty of providing for
the general welfare. We believe that the spreading out and
perpetuity of the institution of slavery impairs the general welfare.
We believe--nay, we know--that that is the only thing that has ever
threatened the perpetuity of the Union itself. The only thing which
has ever menaced the destruction of the government under which we
live is this very thing. To repress this thing, we think, is,
Providing for the general welfare. Our friends in Kentucky differ
from us. We need not make our argument for them, but we who think it
is wrong in all its relations, or in some of them at least, must
decide as to our own actions and our own course, upon our own
judgment.
I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery in
the States where it exists, because the Constitution forbids it, and
the general welfare does not require us to do so. We must not
withhold an efficient Fugitive Slave law, because the Constitution
requires us, as I understand it, not to withhold such a law. But we
must prevent the outspreading of the institution, because neither the
Constitution nor general welfare requires us to extend it. We must
prevent the revival of the African slave trade, and the enacting by
Congress of a Territorial slave code. We must prevent each of these
things being done by either Congresses or courts. The people of
these United States are the rightful masters of both Congresses and
courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men
who pervert the Constitution.
To do these things we must employ instrumentalities. We must hold
conventions; we must adopt platforms, if we conform to ordinary
custom; we must nominate candidates; and we must carry elections. In
all these things, I think that we ought to keep in view our real
purpose, and in none do anything that stands adverse to our purpose.
If we shall adopt a platform that fails to recognize or express our
purpose, or elect a man that declares himself inimical to our
purpose, we not only take nothing by our success, but we tacitly
admit that we act upon no other principle than a desire to have "the
loaves and fishes," by which, in the end, our apparent success is
really an injury to us.
I know that this is very desirable with me, as with everybody else,
that all the elements of the opposition shall unite in the next
Presidential election and in all future time. I am anxious that that
should be; but there are things seriously to be considered in
relation to that matter. If the terms can be arranged, I am in favor
of the union. But suppose we shall take up some man, and put him
upon one end or the other of the ticket, who declares himself against
us in regard to the prevention of the spread of slavery, who turns up
his nose and says he is tired of hearing anything more about it, who
is more against us than against the enemy, what will be the issue?
Why, he will get no slave States, after all,--he has tried that
already until being beat is the rule for him. If we nominate him
upon that ground, he will not carry a slave State; and not only so,
but that portion of our men who are high-strung upon the principle we
really fight for will not go for him, and he won't get a single
electoral vote anywhere, except, perhaps, in the State of Maryland.
There is no use in saying to us that we are stubborn and obstinate
because we won't do some such thing as this. We cannot do it. We
cannot get our men to vote it. I speak by the card, that we cannot
give the State of Illinois in such case by fifty thousand. We would
be flatter down than the "Negro Democracy" themselves have the heart
to wish to see us.
After saying this much let me say a little on the other side. There
are plenty of men in the slave States that are altogether good enough
for me to be either President or Vice-President, provided they will
profess their sympathy with our purpose, and will place themselves on
the ground that our men, upon principle, can vote for them. There
are scores of them, good men in their character for intelligence and
talent and integrity. If such a one will place himself upon the
right ground, I am for his occupying one place upon the next
Republican or opposition ticket. I will heartily go for him. But
unless he does so place himself, I think it a matter of perfect
nonsense to attempt to bring about a union upon any other basis; that
if a union be made, the elements will scatter so that there can be no
success for such a ticket, nor anything like success. The good old
maxims of the Bible axe applicable, and truly applicable, to human
affairs, and in this, as in other things, we may say here that he who
is not for us is against us; he who gathereth not with us,
scattereth. I should be glad to have some of the many good and able
and noble men of the South to place themselves where we can confer
upon them the high honor of an election upon one or the other end of
our ticket. It would do my soul good to do that thing. It would
enable us to teach them that, inasmuch as we select one of their own
number to carry out our principles, we are free from the charge that
we mean more than we say.
But, my friends, I have detained you much longer than I expected to
do. I believe I may do myself the compliment to say that you have
stayed and heard me with great patience, for which I return you my
most sincere thanks.
ON PROTECTIVE TARIFFS
TO EDWARD WALLACE.
CLINTON, October 11, 1859
Dr. EDWARD WALLACE.
MY DEAR SIR:--I am here just now attending court. Yesterday, before
I left Springfield, your brother, Dr. William S. Wallace, showed me a
letter of yours, in which you kindly mention my name, inquiring for
my tariff views, and suggest the propriety of my writing a letter
upon the subject. I was an old Henry-Clay-Tariff Whig. In old times
I made more speeches on that subject than any other.
I have not since changed my views. I believe yet, if we could have a
moderate, carefully adjusted protective tariff, so far acquiesced in
as not to be a perpetual subject of political strife, squabbles
changes, and uncertainties, it would be better for us. Still it is
my opinion that just now the revival of that question will not
advance the cause itself, or the man who revives it.
I have not thought much on the subject recently, but my general
impression is that the necessity for a protective tariff will ere
long force its old opponents to take it up; and then its old friends
can join in and establish it on a more firm and durable basis. We,
the Old Whigs, have been entirely beaten out on the tariff question,
and we shall not be able to re-establish the policy until the absence
of it shall have demonstrated the necessity for it in the minds of
men heretofore opposed to it. With this view, I should prefer to not
now write a public letter on the subject. I therefore wish this to
be considered confidential. I shall be very glad to receive a
letter from you.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
ON MORTGAGES
TO W. DUNGY.
SPRINGFIELD, November, 2, 1859.
WM. DUNGY, Esq.
DEAR SIR:--Yours of October 27 is received. When a mortgage is given
to secure two notes, and one of the notes is sold and assigned, if
the mortgaged premises are only sufficient to pay one note, the one
assigned will take it all. Also, an execution from a judgment on the
assigned note may take it all; it being the same thing in substance.
There is redemption on execution sales from the United States Court
just as from any other court.
You did not mention the name of the plaintiff or defendant in the
suit, and so I can tell nothing about it as to sales, bids, etc.
Write again.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
FRAGMENT OF SPEECH AT LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS,
DECEMBER, 1859.
............. But you Democrats are for the Union; and you greatly
fear the success of the Republicans would destroy the Union. Why? Do
the Republicans declare against the Union? Nothing like it. Your own
statement of it is that if the Black Republicans elect a President,
you "won't stand it." You will break up the Union. If we shall
constitutionally elect a President, it will be our duty to see that
you submit. Old John Brown has been executed for treason against a
State. We cannot object, even though he agreed with us in thinking
slavery wrong. That cannot excuse violence, bloodshed and treason.
It could avail him nothing that he might think himself right. So, if
we constitutionally elect a President, and therefore you undertake to
destroy the Union, it will be our duty to deal with you as old John
Brown has been dealt with. We shall try to do our duty. We hope and
believe that in no section will a majority so act as to render such
extreme measures necessary.
TO G. W. DOLE, G. S. HUBBARD, AND W. H. BROWN.
SPRINGFIELD, Dec. 14, 1859
MESSRS. DOLE, HUBBARD & BROWN.
GENT.:--Your favor of the 12th is at hand, and it gives me pleasure
to be able to answer it. It is not my intention to take part in any
of the rivalries for the gubernatorial nomination; but the fear of
being misunderstood upon that subject ought not to deter me from
doing justice to Mr. Judd, and preventing a wrong being done to him
by the use of nay name in connection with alleged wrongs to me.
In answer to your first question, as to whether Mr. Judd was guilty
of any unfairness to me at the time of Senator Trumbull's election, I
answer unhesitatingly in the negative; Mr. Judd owed no political
allegiance to any party whose candidate I was. He was in the Senate,
holding over, having been elected by a Democratic Constituency. He
never was in any caucus of the friends who sought to make me U. S.
Senator, never gave me any promises or pledges to support me, and
subsequent events have greatly tended to prove the wisdom,
politically, of Mr. Judd's course. The election of Judge Trumbull
strongly tended to sustain and preserve the position of that lion of
the Democrats who condemned the repeal of the Missouri Compromise,
and left them in a position of joining with us in forming the
Republican party, as was done at the Bloomington convention in 1856.
During the canvass of 1858 for the senatorship my belief was, and
still is, that I had no more sincere and faithful friend than Mr.
Judd--certainly none whom I trusted more. His position as chairman
of the State Central Committee led to my greater intercourse with
him, and to my giving him a larger share of my confidence, than with
or to almost any other friend; and I have never suspected that that
confidence was, to any degree, misplaced.
My relations with Mr. Judo since the organization of the Republican
party, in, our State, in 1856, and especially since the adjournment
of the Legislature in Feb., 1857, have been so very intimate that I
deem it an impossibility that he could have been dealing
treacherously with me. He has also, at all times, appeared equally
true and faithful to the party. In his position as chairman of the
committee, I believe he did all that any man could have done. The
best of us are liable to commit errors, which become apparent by
subsequent developments; but I do not know of a single error, even,
committed by Mr. Judd, since he and I have acted together
politically.
I, had occasionally heard these insinuations against Mr. Judd, before
the receipt of your letter; and in no instance have I hesitated to
pronounce them wholly unjust, to the full extent of my knowledge and
belief. I have been, and still am, very anxious to take no part
between the many friends, all good and true, who are mentioned as
candidates for a Republican gubernatorial nomination; but I can not
feel that my own honor is quite clear if I remain silent when I hear
any one of them assailed about matters of which I believe I know more
than his assailants.
I take pleasure in adding that, of all the avowed friends I had in
the canvass of last year, I do not suspect any of having acted
treacherously to me, or to our cause; and that there is not one of
them in whose honesty, honor, and integrity I, today, have greater
confidence than I have in those of Mr. Judd.
I dislike to appear before the public in this matter; but you are at
liberty to make such use of this letter as you may think justice
requires.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO G. M. PARSONS AND OTHERS.
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, December 19, 1859.
MESSRS. G. M. PARSONS AND OTHERS, CENTRAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, ETC.
GENTLEMEN:--Your letter of the 7th instant, accompanied by a similar
one from the governor-elect, the Republican State officers, and the
Republican members of the State Board of Equalization of Ohio, both
requesting of me, for publication in permanent form, copies of the
political debates between Senator Douglas and myself last year, has
been received. With my grateful acknowledgments to both you and them
for the very flattering terms in which the request is communicated, I
transmit you the copies. The copies I send you are as reported and
printed by the respective friends of Senator Douglas and myself, at
the time--that is, his by his friends, and mine by mine. It would be
an unwarrantable liberty for us to change a word or a letter in his,
and the changes I have made in mine, you perceive, are verbal only,
and very few in number. I wish the reprint to be precisely as the
copies I send, without any comment whatever.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
TO J. W. FELL,
SPRINGFIELD, December 20, 1859.
J. W. FELL, Esq.
MY DEAR SIR:--Herewith is a little sketch, as you requested. There
is not much of it, for the reason, I suppose, that there is not much
of me. If anything be made out of it, I wish it to be modest, and
not to go beyond the material. If it were thought necessary to
incorporate anything from any of my speeches I suppose there would be
no objection. Of course it must not appear to have been written by
myself.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN
-----------------------
I was born February 12, 1809, in Hardin County, Kentucky. My parents
were both born in Virginia, of undistinguished families--second
families, perhaps I should say. My mother, who died in my tenth
year, was of a family of the name of Hanks, some of whom now reside
in Adams, and others in Macon County, Illinois. My paternal
grandfather, Abraham Lincoln, emigrated from Rockingham County,
Virginia, to Kentucky about 1781 or 1782, where a year or two later
he was killed by the Indians, not in battle, but by stealth, when he
was laboring to open a farm in the forest. His ancestors, who were
Quakers, went to Virginia from Berks County, Pennsylvania. An effort
to identify them with the New England family of the same name ended
in nothing more definite than a similarity of Christian names in both
families, such as Enoch, Levi, Mordecai, Solomon, Abraham, and the
like.
My father, at the death of his father, was but six years of age, and
he grew up literally without education. He removed from Kentucky to
what is now Spencer County, Indiana, in my eighth year. We reached
our new home about the time that State came into the Union. It was a
wild region, with many bears and other wild animals still in the
woods. There I grew up. There were some schools, so called, but no
qualification was ever required of a teacher beyond "readin',
writin', and cipherin"' to the Rule of Three. If a straggler
supposed to understand Latin happened to sojourn in the neighborhood
he was looked upon as a wizard. There was absolutely nothing to
excite ambition for education. Of course, when I came of age I did
not know much. Still, somehow, I could read, write, and cipher to
the Rule of Three, but that was all. I have not been to school
since. The little advance I now have upon this store of education I
have picked up from time to time under the pressure of necessity.
I was raised to farm work, which I continued till I was twenty-two.
At twenty-one I came to Illinois, Macon County. Then I got to New
Salem, at that time in Sangamon, now in Menard County, where I
remained a year as a sort of clerk in a store. Then came the Black
Hawk war; and I was elected a captain of volunteers, a success which
gave me more pleasure than any I have had since. I went the
campaign, was elected, ran for the Legislature the same year (1832),
and was beaten--the only time I ever have been beaten by the people.
The next and three succeeding biennial elections I was elected to the
Legislature. I was not a candidate afterward. During this
legislative period I had studied law, and removed to Springfield to
practice it. In 1846 I was once elected to the lower House of
Congress. Was not a candidate for re-election. From 1849 to 1854,
both inclusive, practiced law more assiduously than ever before.
Always a Whig in politics; and generally on the Whig electoral
tickets, making active canvasses. I was losing interest in politics
when the repeal of the Missouri Compromise aroused me again. What I
have done since then is pretty well known.
If any personal description of me is thought desirable, it may be
said I am, in height, six feet four inches, nearly; lean in flesh,
weighing on an average one hundred and eighty pounds; dark
complexion, with coarse black hair and gray eyes. No other marks or
brands recollected.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
ON NOMINATION TO THE NATIONAL TICKET
To N. B. JUDD.
SPRINGFIELD, FEBRUARY 9, 1859
HON. N. B. JUDD.
DEAR Sir:--I am not in a position where it would hurt much for me to
not be nominated on the national ticket; but I am where it would hurt
some for me to not get the Illinois delegates. What I expected when
I wrote the letter to Messrs. Dole and others is now happening.
Your discomfited assailants are most bitter against me; and they
will, for revenge upon me, lay to the Bates egg in the South, and to
the Seward egg in the North, and go far toward squeezing me out in
the middle with nothing. Can you help me a little in this matter in
your end of the vineyard. I mean this to be private.
Yours as ever,
A. LINCOLN
1860
SPEECH AT THE COOPER INSTITUTE, NEW YORK
FEBRUARY 27, 1860
MR. PRESIDENT AND FELLOW-CITIZENS OF NEW YORK:--The facts with which
I shall deal this evening are mainly old and familiar; nor is there
anything new in the general use I shall make of them. If there shall
be any novelty, it will be in the mode of presenting the facts, and
the inferences and observations following that presentation.
In his speech last autumn at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in the New
York Times, Senator Douglas said:
"Our fathers, when they framed the Government under which we live,
understood this question just as well, and even better than we do
now."
I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse.
I so adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting-
point for a discussion between Republicans and that wing of the
Democracy headed by Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry:
What was the understanding those fathers had of the question
mentioned?
What is the frame of Government under which we live?
The answer must be--the Constitution of the United States. That
Constitution consists of the original, framed in 1787 (and under
which the present Government first went into operation), and twelve
subsequently framed amendments, the first ten of which were framed in
1789.
Who were our fathers that framed the Constitution? I suppose the
"thirty-nine" who signed the original instrument may be fairly called
our fathers who framed that part of the present Government. It is
almost exactly true to say they framed it, and it is altogether true
to say they fairly represented the opinion and sentiment of the whole
nation at that time.
Their names, being familiar to nearly all, and accessible to quite
all, need not now be repeated.
I take these "thirty-nine," for the present, as being our "fathers
who framed the Government under which we live."
What is the question which, according to the text, those fathers
understood "just as well, and even better than we do now"?
It is this: Does the proper division of local from Federal authority,
or anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government to
control as to slavery in our Federal Territories?
Upon this Senator Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republicans the
negative. This affirmation and denial form an issue, and this issue-
-this question is precisely what the text declares our fathers
understood "better than we."
Let us now inquire whether the "thirty-nine," or any of them, acted
upon this question; and if they did, how they acted upon it -how they
expressed that better understanding.
In 1784, three years before the Constitution--the United States then
owning the Northwestern Territory, and no other--the Congress of the
Confederation had before them the question of prohibiting slavery in
that Territory; and four of the "thirty nine" who afterward framed
the Constitution were in that Congress and voted on that question.
Of these, Roger Sherman, Thomas Mifflin, and Hugh Williamson voted
for the prohibition, thus showing that, in their understanding, no
line dividing local from Federal authority, nor anything else,
properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in
Federal territory. The other of the four--James McHenry voted
against the prohibition, showing that, for some cause, he thought it
improper to vote for it.
In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the convention was
in session framing it, and while the Northwestern Territory still was
the only Territory owned by the United States, the same question of
prohibiting slavery in the Territory again came before the Congress
of the Confederation; and two more of the "thirty-nine" who afterward
signed the Constitution were in that Congress, and voted on the
question. They were William Blount and William Few; and they both
voted for the prohibition thus showing that, in their understanding,
no line dividing local from Federal authority, nor anything else,
properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in
Federal territory. This time the prohibition became a law, being part
of what is now well known as the Ordinance of '87.
The question of Federal control of slavery in the Territories seems
not to have been directly before the convention which framed the
original Constitution; and hence it is not recorded that the
"thirty-nine," or any of them, while engaged on that instrument,
expressed any opinion on that precise question.
In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution, an
act was passed to enforce the Ordinance of '87, including the
prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. The bill for
this act was reported by one of the "thirty-nine," Thomas
Fitzsimmons, then a member of the House of Representatives from
Pennsylvania. It went through all its stages without a word of
opposition, and finally passed both branches without yeas and nays,
which is equivalent to a unanimous passage. In this Congress there
were sixteen of the thirty-nine fathers who framed the original
Constitution. They were John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman, Wm. S.
Johnnson, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Thos. Fitzsimmons, William
Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, William Paterson, George Claimer,
Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll, James
Madison.
This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from
Federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, properly forbade
Congress to prohibit slavery in the Federal territory; else both
their fidelity to correct principles and their oath to support the
Constitution would have constrained them to oppose the prohibition.
Again: George Washington, another of the "thirty nine," was then
President of the United States, and, as such, approved and signed the
bill; thus completing its validity as a law, and thus showing that,
in his understanding, no line dividing local from Federal authority,
nor anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to
control as to slavery in Federal territory.
No great while after the adoption of the original Constitution, North
Carolina ceded to the Federal Government the country now constituting
the State of Tennessee; and, a few years later, Georgia ceded that
which now constitutes the States of Mississippi and Alabama. In both
deeds of cession it was made a condition by the ceding States that
the Federal Government should not prohibit slavery in the ceded
country. Besides this, slavery was then actually in the ceded
country. Under these circumstances, Congress, on taking charge of
these countries, did not absolutely prohibit slavery within them.
But they did interfere with it--take control of it--even there, to a
certain extent. In 1798, Congress organized the Territory of
Mississippi: In the act of organization they prohibited the bringing
of slaves into the Territory from any place without the United
States, by fine and giving freedom to slaves so brought. This act
passed both branches of Congress without yeas and nays. In that
Congress were three of the "thirty-nine" who framed the original
Constitution. They were John Langdon, George Read, and Abraham
Baldwin. They all, probably, voted for it. Certainly they would have
placed their opposition to it upon record, if, in their
understanding, any line dividing local from Federal authority, or
anything in the Constitution, properly forbade the Federal Government
to control as to slavery in Federal territory.
In 1803, the Federal Government purchased the Louisiana country. Our
former territorial acquisitions came from certain of our own States;
but this Louisiana country was acquired from a foreign nation. In
1804, Congress gave a territorial organization to that part of it
which now constitutes the State of Lousiana. New Orleans, lying
within that part, was an old and comparatively large city. There
were other considerable towns and settlements, and slavery was
extensively and thoroughly intermingled with the people. Congress
did not, in the Territorial Act, prohibit slavery; but they did
interfere with it take control of it--in a more marked and extensive
way than they did in the case of Mississippi. The substance of the
provision therein made in relation to slaves was:
First. That no slave should be imported into the Territory from
foreign parts.
Second. That no slave should be carried into it who had been imported
into the United States since the first day of May, 1798.
Third. That no slave should be carried into it except by the owner,
and for his own use as a settler; the penalty in all the cases being
a fine upon the violator of the law, and freedom to the slave.
This act also was passed without yeas and nays. In the Congress which
passed it there were two of the "thirty-nine." They were Abraham
Baldwin and Jonathan Dayton. As stated in the case of Mississippi,
it is probable they both voted for it. They would not have allowed it
to pass without recording their opposition to it, if, in their
understanding, it violated either the line properly dividing local
from Federal authority, or any provision of the Constitution.
In 1819-20 came and passed the Missouri question. Many votes were
taken, by yeas and nays, in both branches of Congress, upon the
various phases of the general question. Two of the "thirty-nine"-
-Rufus King and Charles Pinckney were members of that Congress. Mr.
King steadily voted for slavery prohibition and against all
compromises, while Mr. Pinckney as steadily voted against slavery
prohibition, and against all compromises. By this, Mr. King showed
that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from Federal
authority, nor anything in the Constitution, was violated by Congress
prohibiting slavery in Federal territory; while Mr. Pinckney, by his
vote, showed that in his understanding there was some sufficient
reason for opposing such prohibition in that case.
The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the "thirty-nine," or
of any of them, upon the direct issue, which I have been able to
discover.
To enumerate the persons who thus acted, as being four in 1784, two
in 1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 1798, two in 1804, and two in
1819-20--there would be thirty of them. But this would be counting,
John Langdon, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus King, and George
Read, each twice, and Abraham Baldwin three times. The true number
of those of the "thirty-nine" whom I have shown to have acted upon
the question which, by the text, they understood better than we, is
twenty-three, leaving sixteen not shown to have acted upon it in any
way.
Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our thirty-nine fathers "who
framed the Government under which we live," who have, upon their
official responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the very
question which the text affirms they "understood just as well, and
even better than we do now"; and twenty-one of them--a clear majority
of the whole "thirty-nine"--so acting upon it as to make them guilty
of gross political impropriety and wilful perjury, if, in their
understanding, any proper division between local and Federal.
authority, or anything in the Constitution they had made themselves,
and sworn to support, forbade the Federal Government to control as to
slavery in the Federal Territories. Thus the twenty-one acted; and,
as actions speak louder than words, so actions under such
responsibilities speak still louder.
Two of the twenty-three voted against Congressional prohibition of
slavery in the Federal Territories, in the instances in which they
acted upon the question. But for what reasons they so voted is not
known. They may have done so because they thought a proper division
of local from Federal authority, or some provision or principle of
the Constitution, stood in the way; or they may, without any such
question, have voted against the prohibition on what appeared to them
to be sufficient grounds of expediency. No one who has sworn to
support the Constitution can conscientiously vote for what he
understands to be an unconstitutional measure, however expedient he
may think it; but one may and ought to vote against a measure which
he deems constitutional, if, at the same time, he deems it
inexpedient. It therefore would be unsafe to set down even the two
who voted against the prohibition as having done so because, in their
understanding, any proper division of local from Federal authority,
or anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to
control as to slavery in Federal territory.
The remaining sixteen of the "thirty-nine," so far as I have
discovered, have left no record of their understanding upon the
direct question of Federal control on slavery in the Federal
Territories. But there is much reason to believe that their
understanding upon that question would not have appeared different
from that of their twenty-three compeers, had it been manifested at
all.
For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I have purposely
omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any
person, however distinguished, other than the thirty-nine fathers who
framed the original Constitution; and, for the same reason, I have
also omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any
of the "thirty tine" even on any other phase of the general question
of slavery. If we should look into their acts and declarations on
those other phases, as the foreign slave trade, and the morality and
policy of slavery generally, it would appear to us that on the direct
question of Federal control of slavery in Federal Territories, the
sixteen, if they had acted at all, would probably have acted just as
the twenty-three did. Among that sixteen were several of the most
noted anti-slavery men of those times--as Dr. Franklin, Alexander
Hamilton, and Gouverneur Morris while there was not one now known to
have been otherwise, unless it may be John Rutledge, of South
Carolina.
The sum of the whole is, that of our thirty-nine fathers who framed
the original Constitution, twenty-one--a clear majority of the
whole--certainly understood that no proper division of local from
Federal authority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the
Federal Government to control slavery in the Federal Territories;
whilst all the rest probably had the same understanding. Such,
unquestionably, was the understanding of our fathers who framed the
original Constitution; and the text affirms that they understood the
question "better than we."
But, so far, I have been considering the understanding of the
question manifested by the framers of the original Constitution. In
and by the original instrument, a mode was provided for amending it;
and, as I have already stated, the present frame of "the Government
under which we live" consists of that original, and twelve amendatory
articles framed and adopted since. Those who now insist that Federal
control of slavery in Federal Territories violates the Constitution,
point us to the provisions which they suppose it thus violates; and,
as I understand, they all fix upon provisions in these amendatory
articles, and not in the original instrument. The Supreme Court, in
the Dred Scott case, plant themselves upon the fifth amendment, which
provides that no person shall be deprived of "life, liberty, or
property without due process of law"; while Senator Douglas and his
peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the tenth amendment,
providing that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution" "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people."
Now, it so happens that these amendments were framed by the first
Congress which sat under the Constitution--the identical Congress
which passed the act already mentioned, enforcing the prohibition of
slavery in the Northwestern Territory. Not only was it the same
Congress, but they were the identical same individual men who, at the
same session, and at the same time within the session, had under
consideration, and in progress toward maturity, these Constitutional
amendments, and this act prohibiting slavery in all the territory the
nation then owned. The Constitutional amendments were introduced
before and passed after the act enforcing the Ordinance of '87; so
that, during the whole pendency of the act to enforce the Ordinance,
the Constitutional amendments were also pending.
The seventy-six members of that Congress, including sixteen of the
framers of the original Constitution, as before stated, were
pre-eminently our fathers who framed that part of "the Government
under which we live," which is now claimed as forbidding the Federal
Government to control slavery in the Federal Territories.
Is it not a little presumptuous in any one at this day to affirm that
the two things which that Congress deliberately framed, and carried
to maturity at the same time, are absolutely inconsistent with each
other? And does not such affirmation become impudently absurd when
coupled with the other affirmation from the same mouth, that those
who did the two things alleged to be inconsistent understood whether
they really were inconsistent better than we--better than he who
affirms that they are inconsistent?
It is surely safe to assume that the thirty-nine framers of the
original Constitution, and the seventy-six members of the Congress
which framed the amendments thereto, taken together, do certainly
include those who may be fairly called "our fathers who framed the
Government under which we live." And, so assuming, I defy any man to
show that any one of them ever, in his whole life, declared that, in
his understanding, any proper division of local from Federal
authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal
Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories. I go
a step further. I defy any one to show that any living man in the
world ever did, prior to the beginning of the present century (and I
might almost say prior to the beginning of the last half of the
present century), declare that, in his understanding, any proper
division of local from Federal authority, or any part of the
Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery
in the Federal Territories. To those who now so declare, I give not
only "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live," but
with them all other living men within the century in which it was
framed, among whom to search, and they shall not be able to find the
evidence of a single man agreeing with them.
Now and here let me guard a little against being misunderstood. I do
not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our
fathers did. To do so would be to discard all the lights of current
experience to reject all progress, all improvement. What I do say is
that, if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in
any case, we should do so upon evidence so conclusive, and argument
so clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and
weighed, cannot stand; and most surely not in a case whereof we
ourselves declare they understood the question better than we.
If any man at this day sincerely believes that proper division of
local from Federal authority, or any part of the Constitution,
forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the
Federal Territories, he is right to say so, and to enforce his
position by all truthful evidence and fair argument which he can.
But he has no right to mislead others who have less access to
history, and less leisure to study it, into the false belief that
"our fathers who framed the Government under which we live" were of
the same opinion thus substituting falsehood and deception for
truthful evidence and fair argument. If any man at this day
sincerely believes "our fathers, who framed the Government under
which we live," used and applied principles, in other cases, which
ought to have led them to understand that a proper division of local
from Federal authority, or some part of the Constitution, forbids the
Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal
Territories, he is right to say so. But he should, at the same time,
brave the responsibility of declaring that, in his opinion, he
understands their principles better than they did themselves; and
especially should he not shirk that responsibility by asserting that
they "understood the question just as well, and even better than we
do now."
But enough! Let all who believe that "our fathers, who framed the
Government under which we live, understood this question just as
well, and even better than we do now," speak as they spoke, and act
as they acted upon it. This is all Republicans ask--all Republicans
desire--in relation to slavery. As those fathers marked it, so let
it be again marked, as an evil not to be extended, but to be
tolerated and protected only because of, and so far as, its actual
presence among us makes that toleration and protection a necessity.
Let all the guaranties those fathers gave it be not grudgingly, but
fully and fairly maintained. For this Republicans contend, and with
this, so far as I know or believe, they will be content.
And now, if they would listen--as I suppose they will not--I would
address a few words to the Southern people.
I would say to them: You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just
people; and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and
justice you are not inferior to any other people. Still, when you
speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us as reptiles,
or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing
to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to "Black Republicans."
In all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an
unconditional condemnation of "Black Republicanism" as the first
thing to be attended to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be
an indispensable prerequisite license, so to speak among you, to be
admitted or permitted to speak at all: Now; can you, or not, be
prevailed upon to pause, and to consider whether this is quite just
to us, or even to yourselves? Bring forward your charges and
specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or
justify.
You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the
burden of proof is upon you. You produce your proof; and what is it?
Why, that our party has no existence in your section--gets no votes
in your section. The fact is substantially true; but does it prove
the issue? If it does, then in case we should, without change of
principle, begin to get votes in your section, we should thereby
cease to be sectional. You cannot escape this conclusion; and yet,
are you willing to abide by it? If you are, you will probably soon
find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall get votes in
your section this very year. You will then begin to discover, as the
truth plainly is, that your proof, does not touch the issue. The fact
that we get no votes in your section is a fact of your making, and
not of ours. And if there be fault in that fact, that fault is
primarily yours, and remains so until you show that we repel you by,
some wrong principle or practice. If we do repel you by any wrong
principle or practice, the fault is ours; but this brings you to
where you ought to have started to a discussion of the right or wrong
of our principle. If our principle, put in practice, would wrong
your section for the benefit of ours, or for any other object, then
our principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are justly opposed
and denounced as such. Meet us, then, on the question of whether our
principle, put in practice, would wrong your section; and so meet us
as if it were possible that something may be said on our side. Do
you accept the challenge? No! Then you really believe that the
principle which "our fathers who framed the Government under which we
live" thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again
and again, upon their official oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as
to demand your condemnation without a moment's consideration.
Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against
sectional parties given by Washington in his Farewell Address. Less
than eight years before Washington gave that warning, he had, as
President of the United States, approved and signed an act of
Congress enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern
Territory, which act embodied the policy of the Government upon that
subject up to, and at, the very moment he penned that warning; and
about one year after he penned it, he wrote La Fayette that he
considered that prohibition a wise measure, expressing in the same
connection his hope that we should at some time have a confederacy of
free States.
Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen
upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands
against us, or in our hands against you? Could Washington himself
speak, would he cast the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who
sustain his policy, or upon you, who repudiate it? We respect that
warning of Washington, and we commend it to you, together with his
example pointing to the right application of it.
But you say you are conservative--eminently conservative--while we
are revolutionary, destructive, or something, of the sort. What is
conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against a
new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy
on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who
framed the Government under which we live"; while you with one accord
reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy and insist upon
substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as
to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new
propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and
denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for
reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional slave code
for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to
prohibit slavery within their limits; some for maintaining slavery in
the Territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat
pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man
should object," fantastically called "popular sovereignty"; but never
a man among you in favor of Federal prohibition of slavery in Federal
Territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the
Government under which we live." Not one of all your various plans
can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our
Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of
conservatism for yourselves, and your charge of destructiveness
against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations.
Again: You say we have made the slavery question more prominent than
it formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more prominent,
but we deny that we made it so. It was not we, but you, who
discarded the old policy of the fathers. We resisted and still
resist your innovation; and thence comes the greater prominence of
the question. Would you have that question reduced to its former
proportions? Go back to that old policy. What has been will be
again, under the same conditions. If you would have the peace of the
old times, readopt the precepts and policy of the old times.
You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny
it; and what is your proof'? Harper's Ferry! John Brown!! John
Brown was no Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single
Republican in his Harper's Ferry enterprise. If any member of our
party is guilty in that matter you know it or you do not know it. If
you do know it, you are inexcusable for not designating the man and
proving the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable for
asserting it, and especially for persisting in the assertion after
you have tried and failed to make the proof. You need not be told
that persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true is
simply malicious slander.
Some of you admit that no Republican designedly aided or encouraged
the Harper's Ferry affair, but still insist that our doctrines and
declarations necessarily lead to such results. We do not believe it.
We know we hold to no doctrine, and make no declaration, which were
not held to and made by our fathers who framed the Government under
which we live" You never dealt fairly by us in relation to this
affair. When it occurred, some important State elections were near
at hand, and you were in evident glee with the belief that, by
charging the blame upon us, you could get an advantage of us in those
elections. The elections came, and your expectations were not quite
fulfilled. Every Republican man knew that, as to himself at least,
your charge was a slander, and he was not much inclined by it to cast
his vote in your favor. Republican doctrines and declarations are
accompanied with a continued protest against any interference
whatever with your slaves, or with you about your slaves. Surely,
this does not encourage them to revolt. True, we do, in common with
"our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live," declare
our belief that slavery is wrong; but the slaves do not hear us
declare even this. For any thing we say or do, the slaves would
scarcely know there is a Republican party. I believe they would not,
in fact, generally know it but for your misrepresentations of us in
their hearing. In your political contests among yourselves, each
faction charges the other with sympathy with Black Republicanism; and
then, to give point to the charge, defines Black Republicanism to
simply be insurrection, blood, and thunder among the slaves.
Slave insurrections are no more common now than they were before the
Republican party was organized. What induced the Southampton
insurrection, twenty-eight years ago, in which, at least, three times
as many lives were lost as at Harper's Ferry? You can scarcely
stretch your very elastic fancy to the conclusion that Southampton
was "got up by Black Republicanism." In the present state of things
in the United States, I do not think a general or even a very
extensive slave insurrection is possible. The indispensable concert
of action cannot be attained. The slaves have no means of rapid
communication; nor can incendiary freemen, black or white, supply it.
The explosive materials are everywhere in parcels; but there neither
are, nor can be supplied the indispensable connecting trains.
Much is said by Southern people about the affection of slaves for
their masters and mistresses; and a part of it, at least, is true. A
plot for an uprising could scarcely be devised and communicated to
twenty individuals before some one of them, to save the life of a
favorite master or mistress, would divulge it. This is the rule; and
the slave revolution in Hayti was not an exception to it, but a case
occurring under peculiar circumstances. The gunpowder plot of
British history, though not connected with slaves, was more in point.
In that case, only about twenty were admitted to the secret; and yet
one of them, in his anxiety to save a friend, betrayed the plot to
that friend, and, by consequence, averted the calamity. Occasional
poisonings from the kitchen, and open or stealthy assassinations in
the field, and local revolts, extending to a score or so, will
continue to occur as the natural results of slavery; but no general
insurrection of slaves, as I think, can happen in this country for a
long time. Whoever much fears or much hopes for such an event will
be alike disappointed.
In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is
still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and
deportation peaceably, and in such slow degrees as that the evil will
wear off insensibly, and their places be, pari passu, filled up by
free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself
on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up."
Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of
emancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia;
and, as to the power of emancipation, I speak of the slave holding
States only. The Federal Government, however, as we insist, has the
power of restraining the extension of the institution--the power to
insure that a slave insurrection shall never occur on any American
soil which is now free from slavery.
John Brown's effort was peculiar. It was not a slave insurrection.
It was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves, in
which the slaves refused to participate. In fact, it was so absurd
that the slaves, with all their ignorance, saw plainly enough it
could not succeed. That affair, in its philosophy, corresponds with
the many attempts related in history at the assassination of kings
and emperors. An enthusiast broods over the oppression of a people
till he fancies himself commissioned by Heaven to liberate them. He
ventures the attempt, which ends in little else than his own
execution. Orsini's attempt on Louis Napoleon and John Brown's
attempt at Harper's Ferry were, in their philosophy, precisely the
same. The eagerness to cast blame on old England in the one case,
and on New England in the other, does not disprove the sameness of
the two things.
And how much would it avail you, if you could, by the use of John
Brown, Helper's Book, and the like, break up the Republican
organization? Human action can be modified to some extent, but human
nature cannot be changed. There is a judgment and a feeling against
slavery in this nation, which cast at least a million and a half of
votes. You cannot destroy that judgment and feeling--that sentiment-
-by breaking up the political organization which rallies around it.
You can scarcely scatter and disperse an army which has been formed
into order in the face of your heaviest fire; but if you could, how
much would you gain by forcing the sentiment which created it out of
the peaceful channel of the ballot-box, into some other channel?
What would that other channel probably be? Would the number of John
Browns be lessened or enlarged by the operation?
But you will break up the Union rather than submit to a denial of
your constitutional rights.
That has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would be palliated, if not
fully justified, were we proposing, by the mere force of numbers, to
deprive you of some right plainly written down in the Constitution.
But we are proposing no such thing.
When you make these declarations, you have a specific and well-
understood allusion to an assumed constitutional right of yours to
take slaves into the Federal Territories, and to hold them there as
property. But no such right is specifically written in the
Constitution. That instrument is literally silent about any such
right. We, on the contrary, deny that such a right has any existence
in the Constitution, even by implication.
Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the
Government unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the
Constitution as you please on all points in dispute between you and
us. You will rule or ruin, in all events.
This, plainly stated, is your language. Perhaps you will say the
Supreme Court has decided the disputed constitutional question in
your favor. Not quite so. But, waiving the lawyer's distinction
between dictum and decision, the court have decided the question for
you in a sort of way. The court have substantially said it is your
constitutional right to take slaves into the Federal Territories, and
to hold them there as property. When I say, the decision was made in
a sort of way, I mean it was made in a divided court, by a bare
majority of the judges, and they not quite agreeing with one another
in the reasons for making it; that it is so made as that its avowed
supporters disagree with one another about its meaning, and that it
was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact--the statement in
the opinion that "the right of property in a slave is distinctly and
expressly affirmed in the Constitution."
An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of
property in a slave is not "distinctly and expressly affirmed" in it.
Bear in mind, the judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that
such right is impliedly affirmed in the Constitution; but they pledge
their veracity that it is "distinctly and expressly" affirmed there-
-"distinctly," that is, not mingled with anything else; "expressly,"
that is, in words meaning just that, without the aid of any
inference, and susceptible of no other meaning.
If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that such right is
affirmed in the instrument by implication, it would be open to others
to show that neither the word "slave" nor "slavery" is to be found in
the Constitution, nor the word "property" even, in any connection
with language alluding to the things slave or slavery; and that
wherever in that instrument the slave is alluded to, he is called a
"person"; and wherever his master's legal right in relation to him is
alluded to, it is spoken of as "service or labor which may be due,"
as a debt payable in service or labor. Also, it would be open to
show, by contemporaneous history, that this mode of alluding to
slaves and slavery, instead of speaking of them, was employed on
purpose to exclude from the Constitution the idea that there could be
property in man.
To show all this, is easy and certain.
When this obvious mistake of the judges shall be brought to their
notice, is it not reasonable to expect that they will withdraw the
mistaken statement, and reconsider the conclusion based upon it?
And then it is to be remembered that "our fathers; who framed the
Government under which we live",--the men who made the Constitution--
decided this same constitutional question in our favor, long ago;
decided it without division among themselves, when making the
decision, without division among themselves about the meaning of it
after it was made, and, so far as any evidence is left, without
basing it upon any mistaken statement of facts.
Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves
justified to break up this Government unless such a court decision as
yours is shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule
of political action? But you will not abide the election of a
Republican President! In that supposed event, you say, you will
destroy the Union;, and then, you say, the great crime of having
destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a
pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "stand and deliver,
or I shall kill you, and then you'll be a murderer!"
To be sure, what the robber demanded of me-my money was my own, and I
had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote
is my own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the
threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely
be distinguished in principle.
A few words now to Republicans: It is exceedingly desirable that all
parts of this great confederacy shall be at peace and in harmony one
with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Even
though much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill
temper. Even though the Southern people will not so much as listen
to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield to them if, in
our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly can. Judging by all
they say and do, and by the subject and nature of their controversy
with us, let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy them.
Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally
surrendered to them? We know they will not. In all their present
complaints against us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned.
Invasions and insurrections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them
if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and,
insurrections? We know it will not. We so know because we know we
never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet
this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the
denunciation.
The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must
not only let them alone, but we must, somehow, convince them that we
do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task.
We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of
our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and
speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone;
but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to
convince them is the fact that they have never detected a man of us
in any attempt to disturb them.
These natural and apparently adequate means all failing, what will
convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and
join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly--
done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated--we
must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas's new
sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all
declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in
presses, in pulpits; or in private. We must arrest and return their
fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our free
State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from
all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe
that all their troubles proceed from us.
I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way.
Most of them would probably say to us, "Let us alone, do nothing to
us, and say what you please about slavery." But we do let them alone
have never disturbed them--so that after all it is what we say which
dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until
we cease saying.
I am also aware they have not as yet, in terms, demanded the
overthrow of our free State constitutions. Yet those constitutions
declare the wrong of slavery, with more solemn emphasis than do all
other sayings against it; and when all these other sayings shall have
been silenced, the overthrow of these constitutions will be demanded,
and nothing be left to resist the demand. It is nothing to the
contrary, that they do not demand the whole of this just now.
Demanding what they do, and for the reason they do, they can
voluntarily stop nowhere short of this consummation. Holding, as
they do, that slavery is morally right, and socially elevating, they
cannot cease to demand a full national recognition of it, as a legal
right and a social blessing.
Nor can we justifiably withhold this on any ground save our
conviction that slavery is wrong. If slavery is right, all words,
acts, laws, and constitutions against it are themselves wrong, and
should be silenced and swept away. If it is right, we cannot justly
object to its nationality its universality; if it is wrong, they
cannot justly insist upon its extension--its enlargement. All they
ask we could readily grant if we thought slavery right; all we ask
they could as readily grant, if they thought it wrong. Their
thinking it right and our thinking it wrong is the precise fact upon
which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do,
they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition, as being
right; but thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? Can we
cast our votes with their view, and against our own? In view of our
moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we do this? Wrong
as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it
is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual
presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it,
allow it to spread into the national Territories, and to overrun us
here in these free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then
let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively. Let us be
diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are
so industriously plied and belabored-contrivances such as groping for
some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the
search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead
man-such as a policy of "don't care" on a question about which all
true men do care--such as Union appeals beseeching true Union men to
yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not
the sinners, but the righteous to repentance--such as invocations to
Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said, and undo
what Washington did.
Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations
against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the
Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT
MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR
DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.
SPEECH AT NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT, MARCH 6, 1860
MR. PRESIDENT, AND FELLOW-CITIZENS OF NEW HAVEN:--If the Republican
party of this nation shall ever have the national House entrusted to
its keeping, it will be the duty of that party to attend to all the
affairs of national housekeeping. Whatever matters of importance may
come up, whatever difficulties may arise in its way of administration
of the Government, that party will then have to attend to. It will
then be compelled to attend to other questions, besides this question
which now assumes an overwhelming importance--the question of
slavery. It is true that in the organization of the Republican party
this question of slavery was more important than any other: indeed,
so much more important has it become that no more national question
can even get a hearing just at present. The old question of tariff-
-a matter that will remain one of the chief affairs of national
house-keeping to all time; the question of the management of
financial affairs; the question of the disposition of the public
domain how shall it be managed for the purpose of getting it well
settled, and of making there the homes of a free and happy people?
these will remain open and require attention for a great while yet,
and these questions will have to be attended to by whatever party has
the control of the Government. Yet, just now, they cannot even
obtain a hearing, and I do not propose to detain you upon these
topics or what sort of hearing they should have when opportunity
shall come.
For, whether we will or not, the question of slavery is the question,
the all-absorbing topic of the day. It is true that all of us--and by
that I mean, not the Republican party alone, but the whole American
people, here and elsewhere--all of us wish this question settled,
wish it out of the way. It stands in the way, and prevents the
adjustment, and the giving of necessary attention to other questions
of national house-keeping. The people of the whole nation agree that
this question ought to be settled, and yet it is not settled. And
the reason is that they are not yet agreed how it shall be settled.
All wish it done, but some wish one way and some another, and some a
third, or fourth, or fifth; different bodies are pulling in different
directions, and none of them, having a decided majority, are able to
accomplish the common object.
In the beginning of the year 1854, a new policy was inaugurated with
the avowed object and confident promise that it would entirely and
forever put an end to the slavery agitation. It was again and again
declared that under this policy, when once successfully established,
the country would be forever rid of this whole question. Yet under
the operation of that policy this agitation has not only not ceased,
but it has been constantly augmented. And this too, although, from
the day of its introduction, its friends, who promised that it would
wholly end all agitation, constantly insisted, down to the time that
the Lecompton Bill was introduced, that it was working admirably, and
that its inevitable tendency was to remove the question forever from
the politics of the country. Can you call to mind any Democratic
speech, made after the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, down to the
time of the Lecompton Bill, in which it was not predicted that the
slavery agitation was just at an end, that "the abolition excitement
was played out," "the Kansas question was dead," "they have made the
most they can out of this question and it is now forever settled"?
But since the Lecompton Bill no Democrat, within my experience, has
ever pretended that he could see the end. That cry has been dropped.
They themselves do not pretend, now, that the agitation of this
subject has come to an end yet.
The truth is that this question is one of national importance, and we
cannot help dealing with it; we must do something about it, whether
we will or not. We cannot avoid it; the subject is one we cannot
avoid considering; we can no more avoid it than a man can live
without eating. It is upon us; it attaches to the body politic as
much and closely as the natural wants attach to our natural bodies.
Now I think it important that this matter should be taken up in
earnest, and really settled: And one way to bring about a true
settlement of the question is to understand its true magnitude.
There have been many efforts made to settle it. Again and again it
has been fondly hoped that it was settled; but every time it breaks
out afresh, and more violently than ever. It was settled, our
fathers hoped, by the Missouri Compromise, but it did not stay
settled. Then the compromises of 1850 were declared to be a full and
final settlement of the question. The two great parties, each in
national convention, adopted resolutions declaring that the
settlement made by the Compromise of 1850 was a finality that it
would last forever. Yet how long before it was unsettled again?
It broke out again in 1854, and blazed higher and raged more
furiously than ever before, and the agitation has not rested since.
These repeated settlements must have some faults about them. There
must be some inadequacy in their very nature to the purpose to which
they were designed. We can only speculate as to where that fault,
that inadequacy, is, but we may perhaps profit by past experiences.
I think that one of the causes of these repeated failures is that our
best and greatest men have greatly underestimated the size of this
question. They have constantly brought forward small cures for great
sores--plasters too small to cover the wound. That is one reason
that all settlements have proved temporary--so evanescent.
Look at the magnitude of this subject: One sixth of our population,
in round numbers--not quite one sixth, and yet more than a seventh,--
about one sixth of the whole population of the United States are
slaves. The owners of these slaves consider them property. The
effect upon the minds of the owners is that of property, and nothing
else it induces them to insist upon all that will favorably affect
its value as property, to demand laws and institutions and a public
policy that shall increase and secure its value, and make it durable,
lasting, and universal. The effect on the minds of the owners is to
persuade them that there is no wrong in it. The slaveholder does not
like to be considered a mean fellow for holding that species of
property, and hence, he has to struggle within himself and sets about
arguing himself into the belief that slavery is right. The property
influences his mind. The dissenting minister who argued some
theological point with one of the established church was always met
with the reply, "I can't see it so." He opened a Bible and pointed
him a passage, but the orthodox minister replied, "I can't see it
so." Then he showed him a single word --"Can you see that?" "Yes, I
see it," was the reply. The dissenter laid a guinea over the word
and asked, "Do you see it now?" So here. Whether the owners of this
species of property do really see it as it is, it is not for me to
say, but if they do, they see it as it is through two thousand
millions of dollars, and that is a pretty thick coating. Certain it
is that they do not see it as we see it. Certain it is that this two
thousand millions of dollars, invested in this species of property,
all so concentrated that the mind can grasp it at once--this immense
pecuniary interest--has its influence upon their minds.
But here in Connecticut and at the North slavery does not exist, and
we see it through no such medium.
To us it appears natural to think that slaves are human beings; men,
not property; that some of the things, at least, stated about men in
the Declaration of Independence apply to them as well as to us.
I say we think, most of us, that this charter of freedom applies to
the slaves as well as to ourselves; that the class of arguments put
forward to batter down that idea are also calculated to break down
the very idea of a free government, even for white men, and to
undermine the very foundations of free society. We think slavery a
great moral wrong, and, while we do not claim the right to touch it
where it exists, we wish to treat it as a wrong in the Territories,
where our votes will reach it. We think that a respect for
ourselves, a regard for future generations and for the God that made
us, require that we put down this wrong where our votes will properly
reach it. We think that species of labor an injury to free white men
--in short, we think slavery a great moral, social, and political
evil, tolerable only because, and so far as, its actual existence
makes it necessary to tolerate it, and that beyond that it ought to
be treated as a wrong.
Now these two ideas, the property idea that slavery is right, and the
idea that it is wrong, come into collision, and do actually produce
that irrepressible conflict which Mr. Seward has been so roundly
abused for mentioning. The two ideas conflict, and must conflict.
Again, in its political aspect, does anything in any way endanger the
perpetuity of this Union but that single thing, slavery? Many of our
adversaries are anxious to claim that they are specially devoted to
the Union, and take pains to charge upon us hostility to the Union.
Now we claim that we are the only true Union men, and we put to them
this one proposition: Whatever endangers this Union, save and except
slavery? Did any other thing ever cause a moment's fear? All men
must agree that this thing alone has ever endangered the perpetuity
of the Union. But if it was threatened by any other influence, would
not all men say that the best thing that could be done, if we could
not or ought not to destroy it, would be at least to keep it from
growing any larger? Can any man believe, that the way to save the
Union is to extend and increase the only thing that threatens the
Union, and to suffer it to grow bigger and bigger?
Whenever this question shall be settled, it must be settled on some
philosophical basis. No policy that does not rest upon some
philosophical opinion can be permanently maintained. And hence there
are but two policies in regard to slavery that can be at all
maintained. The first, based on the property view that slavery is
right, conforms to that idea throughout, and demands that we shall do
everything for it that we ought to do if it were right. We must
sweep away all opposition, for opposition to the right is wrong; we
must agree that slavery is right, and we must adopt the idea that
property has persuaded the owner to believe that slavery is morally
right and socially elevating. This gives a philosophical basis for a
permanent policy of encouragement.
The other policy is one that squares with the idea that slavery is
wrong, and it consists in doing everything that we ought to do if it
is wrong. Now, I don't wish to be misunderstood, nor to leave a gap
down to be misrepresented, even. I don't mean that we ought to
attack it where it exists. To me it seems that if we were to form a
government anew, in view of the actual presence of slavery we should
find it necessary to frame just such a government as our fathers did-
-giving to the slaveholder the entire control where the system was
established, while we possessed the power to restrain it from going
outside those limits. From the necessities of the case we should be
compelled to form just such a government as our blessed fathers gave
us; and, surely, if they have so made it, that adds another reason
why we should let slavery alone where it exists.
If I saw a venomous snake crawling in the road, any man would say I
might seize the nearest stick and kill it; but if I found that snake
in bed with my children, that would be another question. I might
hurt the children more than the snake, and it might bite them. Much
more if I found it in bed with my neighbor's children, and I had
bound myself by a solemn compact not to meddle with his children
under any circumstances, it would become me to let that particular
mode of getting rid of the gentleman alone. But if there was a bed
newly made up, to which the children were to be taken, and it was
proposed to take a batch of young snakes and put them there with
them, I take it no man would say there was any question how I ought
to decide!
That is just the case. The new Territories are the newly made bed to
which our children are to go, and it lies with the nation to say
whether they shall have snakes mixed up with them or not. It does
not seem as if there could be much hesitation what our policy should
be!
Now I have spoken of a policy based on the idea that slavery is
wrong, and a policy based on the idea that it is right. But an
effort has been made for a policy that shall treat it as neither
right nor wrong. It is based upon utter indifference. Its leading
advocate [Douglas] has said, "I don't care whether it be voted up or
down." "It is merely a matter of dollars and cents." "The Almighty
has drawn a line across this continent, on one side of which all soil
must forever be cultivated by slave labor, and on the other by free."
"When the struggle is between the white man and the negro, I am for
the white man; when it is between the negro and the crocodile, I am
for the negro." Its central idea is indifference. It holds that it
makes no more difference to us whether the Territories become free or
slave States than whether my neighbor stocks his farm with horned
cattle or puts in tobacco. All recognize this policy, the plausible
sugar-coated name of which is "popular sovereignty."
This policy chiefly stands in the way of a permanent settlement of
the question. I believe there is no danger of its becoming the
permanent policy of the country, for it is based on a public
indifference. There is nobody that "don't care." All the people do
care one way or the other! I do not charge that its author, when he
says he "don't care," states his individual opinion; he only
expresses his policy for the government. I understand that he has
never said as an individual whether he thought slavery right or
wrong--and he is the only man in the nation that has not! Now such a
policy may have a temporary run; it may spring up as necessary to the
political prospects of some gentleman; but it is utterly baseless:
the people are not indifferent, and it can therefore have no
durability or permanence.
But suppose it could: Then it could be maintained only by a public
opinion that shall say, "We don't care." There must be a change in
public opinion; the public mind must be so far debauched as to square
with this policy of caring not at all. The people must come to
consider this as "merely a question of dollars and cents," and to
believe that in some places the Almighty has made slavery necessarily
eternal. This policy can be brought to prevail if the people can be
brought round to say honestly, "We don't care"; if not, it can never
be maintained. It is for you to say whether that can be done.
You are ready to say it cannot, but be not too fast! Remember what a
long stride has been taken since the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise! Do you know of any Democrat, of either branch of the
party--do you know one who declares that he believes that the
Declaration of Independence has any application to the negro? Judge
Taney declares that it has not, and Judge Douglas even vilifies me
personally and scolds me roundly for saying that the Declaration
applies to all men, and that negroes are men. Is there a Democrat
here who does not deny that the Declaration applies to the negro? Do
any of you know of one? Well, I have tried before perhaps fifty
audiences, some larger and some smaller than this, to find one such
Democrat, and never yet have I found one who said I did not place him
right in that. I must assume that Democrats hold that, and now, not
one of these Democrats can show that he said that five years ago! I
venture to defy the whole party to produce one man that ever uttered
the belief that the Declaration did not apply to negroes, before the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise! Four or five years ago we all
thought negroes were men, and that when "all men" were named, negroes
were included. But the whole Democratic party has deliberately taken
negroes from the class of men and put them in the class of brutes.
Turn it as you will it is simply the truth! Don't be too hasty, then,
in saying that the people cannot be brought to this new doctrine, but
note that long stride. One more as long completes the journey from
where negroes are estimated as men to where they are estimated as
mere brutes--as rightful property!
That saying "In the struggle between white men and the negro," etc.,
which I know came from the same source as this policy--that saying
marks another step. There is a falsehood wrapped up in that
statement. "In the struggle between the white man and the negro"
assumes that there is a struggle, in which either the white man must
enslave the negro or the negro must enslave the white. There is no
such struggle! It is merely the ingenious falsehood to degrade and
brutalize the negro. Let each let the other alone, and there is no
struggle about it. If it was like two wrecked seamen on a narrow
plank, when each must push the other off or drown himself, I would
push the negro off or a white man either, but it is not; the plank is
large enough for both. This good earth is plenty broad enough for
white man and negro both, and there is no need of either pushing the
other off.
So that saying, "In the struggle between the negro and the
crocodile," etc., is made up from the idea that down where the
crocodile inhabits, a white man can't labor; it must be nothing else
but crocodile or negro; if the negro does not the crocodile must
possess the earth; in that case he declares for the negro. The
meaning of the whole is just this: As a white man is to a negro, so
is a negro to a crocodile; and as the negro may rightfully treat the
crocodile, so may the white man rightfully treat the negro. This
very dear phrase coined by its author, and so dear that he
deliberately repeats it in many speeches, has a tendency to still
further brutalize the negro, and to bring public opinion to the point
of utter indifference whether men so brutalized are enslaved or not.
When that time shall come, if ever, I think that policy to which I
refer may prevail. But I hope the good freemen of this country will
never allow it to come, and until then the policy can never be
maintained.
Now consider the effect of this policy. We in the States are not to
care whether freedom or slavery gets the better, but the people in
the Territories may care. They are to decide, and they may think
what they please; it is a matter of dollars and cents! But are not
the people of the Territories detailed from the States? If this
feeling of indifference this absence of moral sense about the
question prevails in the States, will it not be carried into the
Territories? Will not every man say, "I don't care, it is nothing to
me"? If any one comes that wants slavery, must they not say, "I don't
care whether freedom or slavery be voted up or voted down"? It
results at last in nationalizing the institution of slavery. Even if
fairly carried out, that policy is just as certain to nationalize
slavery as the doctrine of Jeff Davis himself. These are only two
roads to the same goal, and "popular sovereignty" is just as sure and
almost as short as the other.
What we want, and all we want, is to have with us the men who think
slavery wrong. But those who say they hate slavery, and are opposed
to it, but yet act with the Democratic party--where are they? Let us
apply a few tests. You say that you think slavery is wrong, but you
denounce all attempts to restrain it. Is there anything else that
you think wrong that you are not willing to deal with as wrong? Why
are you so careful, so tender, of this one wrong and no other? You
will not let us do a single thing as if it was wrong; there is no
place where you will even allow it to be called wrong! We must not
call it wrong in the free States, because it is not there, and we
must not call it wrong in the slave States, because it is there; we
must not call it wrong in politics because that is bringing morality
into politics, and we must not call it wrong in the pulpit because
that is bringing politics into religion; we must not bring it into
the Tract Society or the other societies, because those are such
unsuitable places--and there is no single place, according to you,
where this wrong thing can properly be called wrong!
Perhaps you will plead that if the people of the slave States should
themselves set on foot an effort for emancipation, you would wish
them success, and bid them God-speed. Let us test that: In 1858 the
emancipation party of Missouri, with Frank Blair at their head, tried
to get up a movement for that purpose, and having started a party
contested the State. Blair was beaten, apparently if not truly, and
when the news came to Connecticut, you, who knew that Frank Blair was
taking hold of this thing by the right end, and doing the only thing
that you say can properly be done to remove this wrong--did you bow
your heads in sorrow because of that defeat? Do you, any of you, know
one single Democrat that showed sorrow over that result? Not one! On
the contrary every man threw up his hat, and hallooed at the top of
his lungs, "Hooray for Democracy!"
Now, gentlemen, the Republicans desire to place this great question
of slavery on the very basis on which our fathers placed it, and no
other. It is easy to demonstrate that "our fathers, who framed this
Government under which we live," looked on slavery as wrong, and so
framed it and everything about it as to square with the idea that it
was wrong, so far as the necessities arising from its existence
permitted. In forming the Constitution they found the slave trade
existing, capital invested in it, fields depending upon it for labor,
and the whole system resting upon the importation of slave labor.
They therefore did not prohibit the slave trade at once, but they
gave the power to prohibit it after twenty years. Why was this? What
other foreign trade did they treat in that way? Would they have done
this if they had not thought slavery wrong?
Another thing was done by some of the same men who framed the
Constitution, and afterwards adopted as their own the act by the
first Congress held under that Constitution, of which many of the
framers were members, that prohibited the spread of slavery into
Territories. Thus the same men, the framers of the Constitution, cut
off the supply and prohibited the spread of slavery, and both acts
show conclusively that they considered that the thing was wrong.
If additional proof is wanted it can be found in the phraseology of
the Constitution. When men are framing a supreme law and chart of
government, to secure blessings and prosperity to untold generations
yet to come, they use language as short and direct and plain as can
be found, to express their meaning In all matters but this of
slavery the framers of the Constitution used the very clearest,
shortest, and most direct language. But the Constitution alludes to
slavery three times without mentioning it once The language used
becomes ambiguous, roundabout, and mystical. They speak of the
"immigration of persons," and mean the importation of slaves, but do
not say so. In establishing a basis of representation they say "all
other persons," when they mean to say slaves--why did they not use
the shortest phrase? In providing for the return of fugitives they
say "persons held to service or labor." If they had said slaves it
would have been plainer, and less liable to misconstruction. Why did
n't they do it? We cannot doubt that it was done on purpose. Only
one reason is possible, and that is supplied us by one of the framers
of the Constitution--and it is not possible for man to conceive of
any other--they expected and desired that the system would come to an
end, and meant that when it did, the Constitution should not show
that there ever had been a slave in this good free country of ours.
I will dwell on that no longer. I see the signs of approaching
triumph of the Republicans in the bearing of their political
adversaries. A great deal of their war with us nowadays is mere
bushwhacking. At the battle of Waterloo, when Napoleon's cavalry had
charged again and again upon the unbroken squares of British
infantry, at last they were giving up the attempt, and going off in
disorder, when some of the officers in mere vexation and complete
despair fired their pistols at those solid squares. The Democrats
are in that sort of extreme desperation; it is nothing else. I will
take up a few of these arguments.
There is "the irrepressible conflict." How they rail at Seward for
that saying! They repeat it constantly; and, although the proof has
been thrust under their noses again and again that almost every good
man since the formation of our Government has uttered that same
sentiment, from General Washington, who "trusted that we should yet
have a confederacy of free States," with Jefferson, Jay, Monroe, down
to the latest days, yet they refuse to notice that at all, and
persist in railing at Seward for saying it. Even Roger A. Pryor,
editor of the Richmond Enquirer, uttered the same sentiment in almost
the same language, and yet so little offence did it give the
Democrats that he was sent for to Washington to edit the States--the
Douglas organ there--while Douglas goes into hydrophobia and spasms
of rage because Seward dared to repeat it. This is what I call
bushwhacking, a sort of argument that they must know any child can
see through.
Another is John Brown: "You stir up insurrections, you invade the
South; John Brown! Harper's Ferry!" Why, John Brown was not a
Republican! You have never implicated a single Republican in that
Harper's Ferry enterprise. We tell you that if any member of the
Republican party is guilty in that matter, you know it or you do not
know it. If you do know it, you are inexcusable not to designate the
man and prove the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable
to assert it, and especially to persist in the assertion after you
have tried and failed to make the proof. You need not be told that
persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true is simply
malicious slander. Some of you admit that no Republican designedly
aided or encouraged the Harper's Ferry affair, but still insist that
our doctrines and declarations necessarily lead to such results. We
do not believe it. We know we hold to no doctrines, and make no
declarations, which were not held to and made by our fathers who
framed the Government 'under which we live, and we cannot see how
declarations that were patriotic when they made them are villainous
when we make them. You never dealt fairly by us in relation to that
affair--and I will say frankly that I know of nothing in your
character that should lead us to suppose that you would. You had
just been soundly thrashed in elections in several States, and others
were soon to come. You rejoiced at the occasion, and only were
troubled that there were not three times as many killed in the
affair. You were in evident glee; there was no sorrow for the killed
nor for the peace of Virginia disturbed; you were rejoicing that by
charging Republicans with this thing you might get an advantage of us
in New York, and the other States. You pulled that string as tightly
as you could, but your very generous and worthy expectations were not
quite fulfilled. Each Republican knew that the charge was a slander
as to himself at least, and was not inclined by it to cast his vote
in your favor. It was mere bushwhacking, because you had nothing
else to do. You are still on that track, and I say, go on! If you
think you can slander a woman into loving you or a man into voting
for you, try it till you are satisfied!
Another specimen of this bushwhacking, that "shoe strike." Now be it
understood that I do not pretend to know all about the matter. I am
merely going to speculate a little about some of its phases. And at
the outset, I am glad to see that a system of labor prevails in New
England under which laborers can strike when they want to, where they
are not obliged to work under all circumstances, and are not tied
down and obliged to labor whether you pay them or not! I like the
system which lets a man quit when he wants to, and wish it might
prevail everywhere. One of the reasons why I am opposed to slavery
is just here. What is the true condition of the laborer? I take it
that it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as
fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don't believe in a law to
prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good.
So, while we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow
the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else.
When one starts poor, as most do in the race of life, free society is
such that he knows he can better his condition; he knows that there
is no fixed condition of labor for his whole life. I am not ashamed
to confess that twenty-five years ago I was a hired laborer, mauling
rails, at work on a flatboat--just what might happen to any poor
man's son! I want every man to have a chance--and I believe a Black
man is entitled to it--in which he can better his condition; when he
may look forward and hope to be a hired laborer this year and the
next, work for himself afterward, and finally to hire men to work for
him! That is the system. Up here in New England, you have a soil
that scarcely sprouts black-eyed beans, and yet where will you find
wealthy men so wealthy, and poverty so rarely in extremity? There is
not another such place on earth! I desire that if you get too thick
here, and find it hard to better your condition on this soil, you may
have a chance to strike and go somewhere else, where you may not be
degraded, nor have your families corrupted, by forced rivalry with
negro slaves. I want you to have a clean bed and no snakes in it!
Then you can better your condition, and so it may go on and on in one
endless round so long as man exists on the face of the earth!
Now, to come back to this shoe strike,--if, as the senator from
Illinois asserts, this is caused by withdrawal of Southern votes,
consider briefly how you will meet the difficulty. You have done
nothing, and have protested that you have done nothing, to injure the
South. And yet, to get back the shoe trade, you must leave off doing
something which you are now doing. What is it? You must stop
thinking slavery wrong! Let your institutions be wholly changed; let
your State constitutions be subverted; glorify slavery, and so you
will get back the shoe trade--for what? You have brought owned labor
with it, to compete with your own labor, to underwork you, and to
degrade you! Are you ready to get back the trade on those terms?
But the statement is not correct. You have not lost that trade;
orders were never better than now! Senator Mason, a Democrat, comes
into the Senate in homespun, a proof that the dissolution of the
Union has actually begun! but orders are the same. Your factories
have not struck work, neither those where they make anything for
coats, nor for pants nor for shirts, nor for ladies' dresses. Mr.
Mason has not reached the manufacturers who ought to have made him a
coat and pants! To make his proof good for anything he should have
come into the Senate barefoot!
Another bushwhacking contrivance; simply that, nothing else! I find a
good many people who are very much concerned about the loss of
Southern trade. Now either these people are sincere or they are not.
I will speculate a little about that. If they are sincere, and are
moved by any real danger of the loss of Southern trade, they will
simply get their names on the white list, and then, instead of
persuading Republicans to do likewise, they will be glad to keep you
away! Don't you see that they cut off competition? They would not be
whispering around to Republicans to come in and share the profits
with them. But if they are not sincere, and are merely trying to
fool Republicans out of their votes, they will grow very anxious
about your pecuniary prospects; they are afraid you are going to get
broken up and ruined; they do not care about Democratic votes, oh,
no, no, no! You must judge which class those belong to whom you meet:
I leave it to you to determine from the facts.
Let us notice some more of the stale charges against Republicans.
You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the
burden of proof is upon you. You produce your proof; and what is it?
Why, that our party has no existence in your section--gets no votes
in your section. The fact is substantially true; but does it prove
the issue? If it does, then in case we should, without change of
principle, begin to get votes in your section, we should thereby
cease to be sectional. You cannot escape this conclusion; and yet,
are you willing to abide by it? If you are, you will probably soon
find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall get votes in
your section this very year. The fact that we get no votes in your
section is a fact of your making and not of ours. And if there be
fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains so
until you show that we repel you by some wrong principle or practice.
If we do repel you by any wrong principle or practice, the fault is
ours; but this brings you to where you ought to have started--to a
discussion of the right or wrong of our principle. If our principle,
put in practice, would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or
for any other object, then our principle, and we with it, are
sectional, and are justly opposed and denounced as such. Meet us,
then, on the question of whether our principle put in practice would
wrong your section; and so meet it as if it were possible that
something may be said on our side. Do you accept the challenge? No?
Then you really believe that the principle which our fathers who
framed the Government under which we live thought so clearly right as
to adopt it, and indorse it again and again, upon their official
oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as to demand our condemnation
without a moment's consideration. Some of you delight to flaunt in
our faces the warning against sectional parties given by Washington
in his Farewell Address. Less than eight years before Washington
gave that warning, he had, as President of the United States,
approved and signed an act of Congress enforcing the prohibition of
slavery in the Northwestern Territory, which act embodied the policy
of government upon that subject, up to and at the very moment he
penned that warning; and about one year after he penned it he wrote
La Fayette that he considered that prohibition a wise measure,
expressing in the same connection his hope that we should sometime
have a confederacy of free States.
Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen
upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands
against us, or in our hands against you? Could Washington himself
speak, would he cast the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who
sustain his policy, or upon you, who repudiate it? We respect that
warning of Washington, and we commend it to you, together with his
example pointing to the right application of it.
But you say you are conservative--eminently conservative--while we
are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is
conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the
new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy
on the point in controversy which was adopted by our fathers who
framed the Government under which we live; while you with one accord
reject and scout and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon
substituting something new.
True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall
be. You have considerable variety of new propositions and plans, but
you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the
fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave-trade; some
for a congressional slave code for the Territories; some for Congress
forbidding the Territories to prohibit slavery within their limits;
some for maintaining slavery in the Territories through the
judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that if one man would
enslave another, no third man should object--fantastically called
"popular sovereignty." But never a man among you in favor of
prohibition of slavery in Federal Territories, according to the
practice of our fathers who framed the Government under which we
live. Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an
advocate in the century within which our Government originated. And
yet you draw yourselves up and say, "We are eminently conservative."
It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great confederacy
shall be at peace, and in harmony one with another. Let us
Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though much provoked,
let us do nothing through passion and ill-temper. Even though the
Southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmly
consider their demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate view
of our duty, we possibly can. Judging by all they say and do, and by
the subject and nature of their controversy with us, let us
determine, if we can, what will satisfy them.
Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally
surrendered to them? We know they will not. In all their present
complaints against us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned.
Invasions and insurrections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them,
in the future, if we have nothing to do with invasions and
insurrections? We know it will not. We so know because we know we
never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet
this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the
denunciation.
The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: we must not
only let them alone, but we must, somehow, convince them that we do
let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We
have been so trying to convince them, from the very beginning of our
organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and
speeches, we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone;
but this had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to
convince them is the fact that they have never detected a man of us
in any attempt to disturb them.
These natural and apparently adequate means all failing, what will
convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and
join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly--
done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated--we
must place ourselves avowedly with them. Douglas's new sedition law
must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that
slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits,
or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with
greedy pleasure. We must pull down our free State constitutions.
The whole atmosphere must be disinfected of all taint of opposition
to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles
proceed from us. So long as we call slavery wrong, whenever a slave
runs away they will overlook the obvious fact that be ran away
because he was oppressed, and declare he was stolen off. Whenever a
master cuts his slaves with a lash, and they cry out under it, he
will overlook the obvious fact that the negroes cry out because they
are hurt, and insist that they were put up to it by some rascally
abolitionist.
I am quite aware that they do not state their case precisely in this
way. Most of them would probably say to us, "Let us alone, do
nothing to us, and say what you please about slavery." But we do let
them alone--have never disturbed them--so that, after all, it is what
we say which dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of
doing, until we cease saying.
I am also aware that they have not as yet in terms demanded the
overthrow of our free-State constitutions. Yet those constitutions
declare the wrong of slavery with more solemn emphasis than do all
other sayings against it; and when all these other sayings shall have
been silenced, the overthrow of these constitutions will be demanded.
It is nothing to the contrary that they do not demand the whole of
this just now. Demanding what they do, and for the reason they do,
they can voluntarily stop nowhere short of this consummation.
Holding as they do that slavery is morally right, and socially
elevating, they cannot cease to demand a full national recognition of
it, as a legal right, and a social blessing.
Nor can we justifiably withhold this on any ground save our
conviction that slavery is wrong. If slavery is right, all words,
acts, laws, and constitutions against it are themselves wrong and
should be silenced and swept away. If it is right, we cannot justly
object to its nationality--its universality: if it is wrong, they
cannot justly insist upon its extension--its enlargement. All they
ask, we could readily grant, if we thought slavery right; all we ask,
they could as readily grant, if they thought it wrong. Their
thinking it right and our thinking it wrong is the precise fact on
which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right as they do,
they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition, as being
right; but, thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? Can we
cast our votes with their view, and against our own? In view of our
moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we do this?
Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where
it is because that much is due to the necessity arising from its
actual presence m the nation; but can we, while our votes will
prevent it, allow it to spread into the national Territories, and to
overrun us here in these free States?
If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty,
fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those
sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and
belabored--contrivances such as groping for some middle ground
between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who
would be neither a living man nor a dead man--such as a policy of
"don't care" on a question about which all free men do care--such as
Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists,
reversing the divine rule, and caning, not the sinners, but the
righteous to repentance--such as invocations of Washington, imploring
men to unsay what Washington did.
Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations
against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the
Government, nor of dungeons to ourselves. Let us have faith that
right makes might; and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do
our duty as we understand it.
[As Mr. Lincoln concluded his address, there was witnessed the
wildest scene of enthusiasm and excitement that has been in New Haven
for years. The Palladium editorially says: "We give up most of our
space to-day to a very full report of the eloquent speech of the HON.
Abraham Lincoln, of Illinois, delivered last night at Union Hall."]
RESPONSE TO AN ELECTOR'S REQUEST FOR MONEY
TO ________________
March 16, 1860
As to your kind wishes for myself, allow me to say I cannot enter the
ring on the money basis--first, because in the main it is wrong; and
secondly, I have not and cannot get the money.
I say, in the main, the use of money is wrong; but for certain
objects in a political contest, the use of some is both right and
indispensable. With me, as with yourself, the long struggle has been
one of great pecuniary loss.
I now distinctly say this--if you shall be appointed a delegate to
Chicago, I will furnish one hundred dollars to bear the expenses of
the trip.
Your friend as ever,
A. LINCOLN.
[Extract from a letter to a Kansas delegate.]
TO J. W. SOMERS.
SPRINGFIELD, March 17, 1860
JAMES W. SOMERS, Esq.
DEAR SIR:--Reaching home three days ago, I found your letter of
February 26th. Considering your difficulty of hearing, I think you
had better settle in Chicago, if, as you say, a good man already in
fair practice there will take you into partnership. If you had not
that difficulty, I still should think it an even balance whether you
would not better remain in Chicago, with such a chance for
copartnership.
If I went west, I think I would go to Kansas, to Leavenworth or
Atchison. Both of them are and will continue to be fine growing
places.
I believe I have said all I can, and I have said it with the deepest
interest for your welfare.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
ACCUSATION OF HAVING BEEN PAID FOR A
POLITICAL SPEECH
TO C. F. McNEIL.
SPRINGFIELD, April 6, 1860
C. F. MCNEIL, Esq.
DEAR SIR:--Reaching home yesterday, I found yours of the 23d March,
inclosing a slip from The Middleport Press. It is not true that I
ever charged anything for a political speech in my life; but this
much is true: Last October I was requested by letter to deliver some
sort of speech in Mr. Beecher's church, in Brooklyn--two hundred
dollars being offered in the first letter. I wrote that I could do
it in February, provided they would take a political speech if I
could find time to get up no other. They agreed; and subsequently I
informed them the speech would have to be a political one. When I
reached New York, I for the first time learned that the place was
changed to "Cooper Institute." I made the speech, and left for New
Hampshire, where I have a son at school, neither asking for pay nor
having any offered me. Three days after a check for two hundred
dollars was sent to me at New Hampshire; and I took it, and did not
know it was wrong. My understanding now is--though I knew nothing of
it at the time--that they did charge for admittance to the Cooper
Institute, and that they took in more than twice two hundred dollars.
I have made this explanation to you as a friend; but I wish no
explanation made to our enemies. What they want is a squabble and a
fuss, and that they can have if we explain; and they cannot have it
if we don't.
When I returned through New York from New England, I was told by the
gentlemen who sent me the Check that a drunken vagabond in the club,
having learned something about the two hundred dollars, made the
exhibition out of which The Herald manufactured the article quoted by
The Press of your town.
My judgment is, and therefore my request is, that you give no denial
and no explanation.
Thanking you for your kind interest in the matter, I remain,
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO H. TAYLOR.
SPRINGFIELD, ILL., April 21, 1860.
HAWKINS TAYLOR, Esq.
DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 15th is just received. It surprises me that
you have written twice, without receiving an answer. I have answered
all I ever received from you; and certainly one since my return from
the East.
Opinions here, as to the prospect of Douglas being nominated, are
quite conflicting--some very confident he will, and others that he
will not be. I think his nomination possible, but that the chances
are against him.
I am glad there is a prospect of your party passing this way to
Chicago. Wishing to make your visit here as pleasant as we can, we
wish you to notify us as soon as possible whether you come this way,
how many, and when you will arrive.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN
TELEGRAM TO A MEMBER OF THE ILLINOIS DELEGATION
AT THE CHICAGO CONVENTION.
SPRINGFIELD, May 17? 1860.
I authorize no bargains and will be bound by none.
A. LINCOLN.
REPLY TO THE COMMITTEE SENT BY THE CHICAGO CONVENTION TO INFORM
LINCOLN OF HIS
NOMINATION,
MAY 19, 1860.
Mr. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COMMITTEE:--I tender to you, and
through you to the Republican National Convention, and all the people
represented in it, my profoundest thanks for the high honor done me,
which you now formally announce. Deeply and even painfully sensible
of the great responsibility which is inseparable from this high
honor--a responsibility which I could almost wish had fallen upon
some one of the far more eminent men and experienced statesmen whose
distinguished names were before the convention--I shall, by your
leave, consider more fully the resolutions of the convention,
denominated their platform, and without any unnecessary or
unreasonable delay respond to you, Mr. Chairman, in writing--not
doubting that the platform will be found satisfactory, and the
nomination gratefully accepted.
And now I will not longer defer the pleasure of taking you, and each
of you, by the hand.
ACCEPTANCE OF NOMINATION AS REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE
FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
TO GEORGE ASHMUN AND OTHERS.
SPRINGFIELD ILLINOIS, May 23, 1860
HON. GEORGE ASHMUN,
President of Republican National Convention.
SIR:--I accept the nomination tendered me by the convention over
which you presided, and of which I am formally apprised in the letter
of yourself and others, acting as a committee of the convention for
that purpose.
The declaration of principles and sentiments which accompanies your
letter meets my approval; and it shall be my care not to violate or
disregard it in any part.
Imploring the assistance of Divine Providence, and with due regard to
the views and feelings of all who were represented in the convention,
to the rights of all the States and Territories and people of the
nation, to the inviolability of the Constitution, and the perpetual
union, harmony, and prosperity of all--I am most happy to co-operate
for the practical success of the principles declared by the
convention.
Your obliged friend and fellow-citizen,
A. LINCOLN.
To C. B. SMITH.
SPRINGFIELD, ILL., May 26, 1860.
HON. C. B. SMITH.
MY DEAR SIR:-Yours of the 21st was duly received, but have found no
time until now to say a word in the way of answer. I am indeed much
indebted to Indiana; and, as my home friends tell me, much to you
personally. Your saying, you no longer consider Ia. a doubtful State
is very gratifying. The thing starts well everywhere--too well, I
almost fear, to last. But we are in, and stick or go through must be
the word.
Let me hear from Indiana occasionally.
Your friend, as ever,
A. LINCOLN.
FORM OF REPLY PREPARED BY MR. LINCOLN, WITH WHICH HIS PRIVATE
SECRETARY WAS INSTRUCTED TO ANSWER A NUMEROUS CLASS OF LETTERS IN
THE CAMPAIGN OF 1860.
(Doctrine.)
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, _______, 1860
DEAR SIR:--Your letter to Mr. Lincoln of and by which you seek to
obtain his opinions on certain political points, has been received by
him. He has received others of a similar character, but he also has
a greater number of the exactly opposite character. The latter class
beseech him to write nothing whatever upon any point of political
doctrine. They say his positions were well known when he was
nominated, and that he must not now embarrass the canvass by
undertaking to shift or modify them. He regrets that he cannot
oblige all, but you perceive it is impossible for him to do so.
Yours, etc.,
JNO. J. NICOLAY.
TO E. B. WASHBURNE.
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS,
MAY 26, 1860
HON. E. B. WASHBURNE.
MY DEAR SIR:--I have several letters from you written since the
nomination, but till now have found no moment to say a word by way of
answer. Of course I am glad that the nomination is well received by
our friends, and I sincerely thank you for so informing me. So far
as I can learn, the nominations start well everywhere; and, if they
get no back-set, it would seem as if they are going through. I hope
you will write often; and as you write more rapidly than I do, don't
make your letters so short as mine.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO S. HAYCRAFT.
SPRINGFIELD, ILL., June 4, 1860.
HON. SAMUEL HAYCRAFT.
MY DEAR SIR:--Like yourself I belonged to the old Whig party from its
origin to its close. I never belonged to the American party
organization, nor ever to a party called a Union party; though I hope
I neither am or ever have been less devoted to the Union than
yourself or any other patriotic man.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
ABRAHAM OR "ABRAM"
TO G. ASHMUN.
SPRINGFIELD, ILL. June 4, 1860
HON. GEORGE ASHMUN.
MY DEAR SIR:--It seems as if the question whether my first name is
"Abraham" or "Abram" will never be settled. It is "Abraham," and if
the letter of acceptance is not yet in print, you may, if you think
fit, have my signature thereto printed "Abraham Lincoln." Exercise
your judgment about this.
Yours as ever,
A. LINCOLN.
UNAUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY
TO S. GALLOWAY.
SPRINGFIELD, ILL., June 19, 1860
HON. SAM'L GALLOWAY.
MY DEAR SIR:--Your very kind letter of the 15th is received. Messrs.
Follett, Foster, & Co.'s Life of me is not by my authority; and I
have scarcely been so much astounded by anything, as by their public
announcement that it is authorized by me. They have fallen into some
strange misunderstanding. I certainly knew they contemplated
publishing a biography, and I certainly did not object to their doing
so, upon their own responsibility. I even took pains to facilitate
them. But, at the same time, I made myself tiresome, if not hoarse,
with repeating to Mr. Howard, their only agent seen by me, my protest
that I authorized nothing--would be responsible for nothing. How
they could so misunderstand me, passes comprehension. As a matter
wholly my own, I would authorize no biography, without time and
opportunity [sic] to carefully examine and consider every word of it
and, in this case, in the nature of things, I can have no such time
and Opportunity [sic]. But, in my present position, when, by the
lessons of the past, and the united voice of all discreet friends, I
can neither write nor speak a word for the public, how dare I to send
forth, by my authority, a volume of hundreds of pages, for
adversaries to make points upon without end? Were I to do so, the
convention would have a right to re-assemble and substitute another
name for mine.
For these reasons, I would not look at the proof sheets--I am
determined to maintain the position of [sic] truly saying I never saw
the proof sheets, or any part of their work, before its publication.
Now, do not mistake me--I feel great kindness for Messrs. F., F., &
Co.--do not think they have intentionally done wrong. There may be
nothing wrong in their proposed book--I sincerely hope there will
not. I barely suggest that you, or any of the friends there, on the
party account, look it over, and exclude what you may think would
embarrass the party bearing in mind, at all times, that I authorize
nothing--will be responsible for nothing.
Your friend, as ever,
A. LINCOLN.
[The custom then, and it may be a good one, was for the Presidential
candidate to do no personal canvassing or speaking--or as we have it
now "running for election." He stayed at home and kept his mouth
shut. D.W.]
TO HANNIBAL HAMLIN.
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, July 18, 1860.
HON. HANNIBAL HAMLIN.
MY DEAR SIR:--It appears to me that you and I ought to be acquainted,
and accordingly I write this as a sort of introduction of myself to
you. You first entered the Senate during the single term I was a
member of the House of Representatives, but I have no recollection
that we were introduced. I shall be pleased to receive a line from
you.
The prospect of Republican success now appears very flattering, so
far as I can perceive. Do you see anything to the contrary?
Yours truly, A. LINCOLN.
TO A. JONAS.
(Confidential.)
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, JULY 21, 1860.
HON. A. JONAS.
MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 20th is received. I suppose as good or
even better men than I may have been in American or Know-Nothing
lodges; but in point of fact, I never was in one at Quincy or
elsewhere. I was never in Quincy but one day and two nights while
Know-Nothing lodges were in existence, and you were with me that day
and both those nights. I had never been there before in my life, and
never afterward, till the joint debate with Douglas in 1858. It was
in 1854 when I spoke in some hall there, and after the speaking, you,
with others, took me to an oyster-saloon, passed an hour there, and
you walked with me to, and parted with me at, the Quincy House, quite
late at night. I left by stage for Naples before daylight in the
morning, having come in by the same route after dark the evening,
previous to the speaking, when I found you waiting at the Quincy
House to meet me. A few days after I was there, Richardson, as I
understood, started this same story about my having been in a
Know-Nothing lodge. When I heard of the charge, as I did soon after;
I taxed my recollection for some incident which could have suggested
it; and I remembered that on parting with you the last night I went
to the office of the hotel to take my stage-passage for the morning,
was told that no stage-office for that line was kept there, and that
I must see the driver before retiring, to insure his calling for me
in the morning; and a servant was sent with me to find the driver,
who, after taking me a square or two, stopped me, and stepped perhaps
a dozen steps farther, and in my hearing called to some one, who
answered him, apparently from the upper part of a building, and
promised to call with the stage for me at the Quincy House.
I returned, and went to bed, and before day the stage called and took
me. This is all.
That I never was in a Know-Nothing lodge in Quincy, I should expect
could be easily proved by respectable men who were always in the
lodges and never saw me there. An affidavit of one or two such would
put the matter at rest.
And now a word of caution. Our adversaries think they can gain a
point if they could force me to openly deny the charge, by which some
degree of offence would be given to the Americans. For this reason
it must not publicly appear that I am paying any attention to the
charge.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO JOHN B. FRY.
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, August 15, 1860.
MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 9th, inclosing the letter of HON. John
Minor Botts, was duly received. The latter is herewith returned
according to your request. It contains one of the many assurances I
receive from the South, that in no probable event will there be any
very formidable effort to break up the Union. The people of the
South have too much of good sense and good temper to attempt the ruin
of the government rather than see it administered as it was
administered by the men who made it. At least so I hope and believe.
I thank you both for your own letter and a sight of that of Mr.
Botts.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO THURLOW WEED
SPRINGFIELD, ILL. August 17 1860.
MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 13th was received this morning. Douglas
is managing the Bell element with great adroitness. He had his men
in Kentucky to vote for the Bell candidate, producing a result which
has badly alarmed and damaged Breckenridge, and at the same time has
induced the Bell men to suppose that Bell will certainly be
President, if they can keep a few of the Northern States away from us
by throwing them to Douglas. But you, better than I, understand all
this.
I think there will be the most extraordinary effort ever made to
carry New York for Douglas. You and all others who write me from
your State think the effort cannot succeed, and I hope you are right.
Still, it will require close watching and great efforts on the other
side.
Herewith I send you a copy of a letter written at New York, which
sufficiently explains itself, and which may or may not give you a
valuable hint. You have seen that Bell tickets have been put on the
track both here and in Indiana. In both cases the object has been, I
think, the same as the Hunt movement in New York--to throw States to
Douglas. In our State, we know the thing is engineered by Douglas
men, and we do not believe they can make a great deal out of it.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
SLOW TO LISTEN TO CRIMINATIONS
TO HON. JOHN ______________
(Private.)
SPRINGFIELD, ILL., Aug. 31, 1860
MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 27th is duly received. It consists almost
exclusively of a historical detail of some local troubles, among some
of our friends in Pennsylvania; and I suppose its object is to guard
me against forming a prejudice against Mr. McC___________, I have not
heard near so much upon that subject as you probably suppose; and I
am slow to listen to criminations among friends, and never expose
their quarrels on either side. My sincere wish is that both sides
will allow bygones to be bygones, and look to the present and future
only.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO HANNIBAL HAMLIN
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, September 4, 1860
HON. HANNIBAL HAMLIN.
MY DEAR SIR:--I am annoyed some by a letter from a friend in Chicago,
in which the following passage occurs: "Hamlin has written Colfax
that two members of Congress will, he fears, be lost in Maine, the
first and sixth districts; and that Washburne's majority for governor
will not exceed six thousand."
I had heard something like this six weeks ago, but had been assured
since that it was not so. Your secretary of state,--Mr. Smith, I
think,--whom you introduced to me by letter, gave this assurance;
more recently, Mr. Fessenden, our candidate for Congress in one of
those districts, wrote a relative here that his election was sure by
at least five thousand, and that Washburne's majority would be from
14,000 to 17,000; and still later, Mr. Fogg, of New Hampshire, now at
New York serving on a national committee, wrote me that we were
having a desperate fight in Maine, which would end in a splendid
victory for us.
Such a result as you seem to have predicted in Maine, in your letter
to Colfax, would, I fear, put us on the down-hill track, lose us the
State elections in Pennsylvania and Indiana, and probably ruin us on
the main turn in November.
You must not allow it.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO E. B. WASHBURNE.
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS,
September 9, 1860
HON. E. B. WASHBURNE.
MY DEAR SIR: Yours of the 5th was received last evening. I was right
glad to see it. It contains the freshest "posting" which I now have.
It relieved me some from a little anxiety I had about Maine. Jo
Medill, on August 3oth, wrote me that Colfax had a letter from Mr.
Hamlin saying we were in great danger of losing two members of
Congress in Maine, and that your brother would not have exceeding six
thousand majority for Governor. I addressed you at once, at Galena,
asking for your latest information. As you are at Washington, that
letter you will receive some time after the Maine election.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO W. H. HERNDON.
SPRINGFIELD, ILL., OCTOBER 10, 1860
DEAR WILLIAM:--I cannot give you details, but it is entirely certain
that Pennsylvania and Indiana have gone Republican very largely.
Pennsylvania 25,000, and Indiana 5000 to 10,000. Ohio of course is
safe.
Yours as ever,
A. LINCOLN.
TO L. M. BOND.
SPRINGFIELD, ILL., October 15, 1860
L. MONTGOMERY BOND, Esq.
MY DEAR SIR: I certainly am in no temper and have no purpose to
embitter the feelings of the South, but whether I am inclined to such
a course as would in fact embitter their feelings you can better
judge by my published speeches than by anything I would say in a
short letter if I were inclined now, as I am not, to define my
position anew.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
LETTER SUGGESTING A BEARD
TO MISS GRACE BEDELL, RIPLEY N.Y.
SPRINGFIELD, ILL., October 19, 1860
MISS GRACE BEDELL.
MY DEAR LITTLE MISS:--Your very agreeable letter of the 15th is
received. I regret the necessity of saying I have no daughter. I
have three sons--one seventeen, one nine, and one seven. They with
their mother constitute my whole family. As to the whiskers, as I
have never worn any, do you not think that people would call it a
piece of silly affectation were I to begin wearing them now?
I am your true friend and sincere well-wisher,
A. LINCOLN.
EARLY INFORMATION ON ARMY DEFECTION IN SOUTH
TO D. HUNTER.
(Private and Confidential.)
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, October 26, 1860
MAJOR DAVID HUNTER
MY DEAR SIR:--Your very kind letter of the 20th was duly received,
for which please accept my thanks. I have another letter, from a
writer unknown to me, saying the officers of the army at Fort Kearny
have determined in case of Republican success at the approaching
Presidential election, to take themselves, and the arms at that
point, south, for the purpose of resistance to the government. While
I think there are many chances to one that this is a humbug, it
occurs to me that any real movement of this sort in the Army would
leak out and become known to you. In such case, if it would not be
unprofessional or dishonorable (of which you are to be judge), I
shall be much obliged if you will apprise me of it.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO HANNIBAL HAMLIN
(Confidential.)
SPRINGFIELD. ILLINOIS, November 8, 1860
HON. HANNIBAL HAMLIN.
MY DEAR SIR:--I am anxious for a personal interview with you at as
early a day as possible. Can you, without much inconvenience, meet
me at Chicago? If you can, please name as early a day as you
conveniently can, and telegraph me, unless there be sufficient time
before the day named to communicate by mail.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO SAMUEL HAYCRAFT.
(Private and Confidential.)
SPRINGFIELD, ILL., Nov.13, 1860
HON. SAMUEL HAYCRAFT.
MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 9th is just received. I can only answer
briefly. Rest fully assured that the good people of the South who
will put themselves in the same temper and mood towards me which you
do will find no cause to complain of me.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
REMARKS AT THE MEETING AT SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS
TO CELEBRATE LINCOLN'S ELECTION,
NOVEMBER 20, 1860
FRIENDS AND FELLOW-CITIZENS:--Please excuse me on this occasion from
making a speech. I thank you in common with all those who have
thought fit by their votes to indorse the Republican cause. I
rejoice with you in the success which has thus far attended that
cause. Yet in all our rejoicings let us neither express nor cherish
any hard feelings toward any citizen who by his vote has differed
with us. Let us at all times remember that all American citizens are
brothers of a common country, and should dwell together in the bonds
of fraternal feeling. Let me again beg you to accept my thanks, and
to excuse me from further speaking at this time.
TO ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS
SPRINGFIELD, ILL. NOV. 30, 1860
HON. A. H. STEPHENS.
MY DEAR SIR:--I have read in the newspapers your speech recently
delivered (I think) before the Georgia Legislature, or its assembled
members. If you have revised it, as is probable, I shall be much
obliged if you will send me a copy.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO HANNIBAL HAMLIN
(Private)
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, December 8, 1860
HON. HANNIBAL HAMLIN.
DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 4th was duly received. The inclosed to
Governor Seward covers two notes to him, copies of which you find
open for your inspection. Consult with Judge Trumbull; and if you
and he see no reason to the contrary, deliver the letter to Governor
Seward at once. If you see reason to the contrary write me at once.
I have an intimation that Governor Banks would yet accept a place in
the Cabinet. Please ascertain and write me how this is,
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
BLOCKING "COMPROMISE" ON SLAVERY ISSUE
TO E. B. WASHBURNE
(Private and Confidential.)
SPRINGFIELD, ILL., December 13, 1860
HON. E. B. WASHBURNE.
MY DEAR SIR:--Your long letter received. Prevent, as far as
possible, any of our friends from demoralizing themselves and our
cause by entertaining propositions for compromise of any sort on
"slavery extension." There is no possible compromise upon it but
which puts us under again, and leaves all our work to do over again.
Whether it be a Missouri line or Eli Thayer's popular sovereignty, it
is all the same. Let either be done, and immediately filibustering
and extending slavery recommences. On that point hold firm, as with
a chain of steel.
Yours as ever,
A. LINCOLN.
OPINION ON SECESSION
TO THURLOW WEED
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, DECEMBER 17, 1860
MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 11th was received two days ago. Should
the convocation of governors of which you speak seem desirous to know
my views on the present aspect of things, tell them you judge from my
speeches that I will be inflexible on the territorial question; but I
probably think either the Missouri line extended, or Douglas's and
Eli Thayer's popular sovereignty would lose us everything we gain by
the election; that filibustering for all south of us and making slave
States of it would follow in spite of us, in either case; also that I
probably think all opposition, real and apparent, to the fugitive
slave clause of the Constitution ought to be withdrawn.
I believe you can pretend to find but little, if anything, in my
speeches, about secession. But my opinion is that no State can in
any way lawfully get out of the Union without the consent of the
others; and that it is the duty of the President and other government
functionaries to run the machine as it is.
Truly yours,
A. LINCOLN.
SOME FORTS SURRENDERED TO THE SOUTH
TO E. B. WASHBURNE
(Confidential)
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, December 21, 1860
HON. E. B. WASHBURNE.
MY DEAR SIR:--Last night I received your letter giving an account of
your interview with General Scott, and for which I thank you. Please
present my respects to the General, and tell him, confidentially, I
shall be obliged to him to be as well prepared as he can to either
hold or retake the forts, as the case may require, at and after the
inauguration.
Yours as ever,
A. LINCOLN.
TO A. H. STEPHENS.
(For your own eye only)
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, DECEMBER 22, 1860
HON. ALEXANDER STEVENS
MY DEAR SIR:--Your obliging answer to my short note is just received,
and for which please accept my thanks. I fully appreciate the
present peril the country is in, and the weight of responsibility on
me. Do the people of the South really entertain fear that a
Republican administration would, directly or indirectly, interfere
with the slaves, or with them about the slaves? If they do, I wish to
assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that
there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more
danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington. I
suppose, however, this does not meet the case. You think slavery is
right and ought to be extended, while we think it is wrong and ought
to be restricted. That, I suppose, is the rub. It certainly is the
only substantial difference between us.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
SUPPORT OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE CLAUSE
MEMORANDUM
December [22?], 1860
Resolved:
That the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution ought to be
enforced by a law of Congress, with efficient provisions for that
object, not obliging private persons to assist in its execution, but
punishing all who resist it, and with the usual safeguards to
liberty, securing free men against being surrendered as slaves.
That all State laws, if there be such, really or apparently in
conflict with such law of Congress, ought to be repealed; and no
opposition to the execution of such law of Congress ought to be made.
That the Federal Union must be preserved.
Prepared for the consideration of the Republican members of the
Senate Committee of Thirteen.
TO D. HUNTER.
(Confidential.)
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS December 22, 1860
MAJOR DAVID HUNTER.
MY DEAR SIR:--I am much obliged by the receipt of yours of the 18th.
The most we can do now is to watch events, and be as well prepared as
possible for any turn things may take. If the forts fall, my
judgment is that they are to be retaken. When I shall determine
definitely my time of starting to Washington, I will notify you.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO I. N. MORRIS
(Confidential.)
SPRINGFIELD, ILL., Dec 24, 1860
HON. I. N. MORRIS.
MY DEAR SIR:--Without supposing that you and I are any nearer
together, politically, than heretofore, allow me to tender you my
sincere thanks for your Union resolution, expressive of views upon
which we never were, and, I trust, never will be at variance.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
ATTEMPT TO FORM A COALITION CABINET
TO HANNIBAL HAMLIN
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, December 14, 1860.
HON. HANNIBAL HAMLIN.
MY DEAR SIR:--I need a man of Democratic antecedents from New
England. I cannot get a fair share of that element in without. This
stands in the way of Mr. Adams. I think of Governor Banks, Mr.
Welles, and Mr. Tuck. Which of them do the New England delegation
prefer? Or shall I decide for myself?
Yours as ever,
A. LINCOLN.
1861
TO WILLIAM H. SEWARD.
(Private.)
SPRINGFIELD. ILL., January 3, 1861.
HON. W. H. SEWARD.
DEAR SIR:--Yours without signature was received last night. I have
been considering your suggestions as to my reaching Washington
somewhat earlier than is usual. It seems to me the inauguration is
not the most dangerous point for us. Our adversaries have us now
clearly at disadvantage on the second Wednesday of February, when the
votes should be officially counted. If the two houses refuse to meet
at all, or meet without a quorum of each, where shall we be? I do
not think that this counting is constitutionally essential to the
election, but how are we to proceed in the absence of it? In view of
this, I think it is best for me not to attempt appearing in
Washington till the result of that ceremony is known.
It certainly would be of some advantage if you could know who are to
be at the heads of the War and Navy departments, but until I can
ascertain definitely whether I can get any suitable men from the
South, and who, and how many, I can not well decide. As yet, I have
no word from Mr. Gilmer in answer to my request for an interview with
him. I look for something on the subject, through you, before long.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO W. H. SEWARD.
(Private.)
SPRINGFIELD, ILL., January 12, 1861
HON. W. H. SEWARD.
MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 8th received. I still hope Mr. Gilmer
will, on a fair understanding with us, consent to take a place in the
Cabinet. The preference for him over Mr. Hunt or Mr. Gentry is that,
up to date--he has a living position in the South, while they have
not. He is only better than Winter Davis in that he is farther
south. I fear, if we could get, we could not safely take more than
one such man--that is, not more than one who opposed us in the
election--the danger being to lose the confidence of our own friends.
Your selection for the State Department having become public, I am
happy to find scarcely any objection to it. I shall have trouble
with every other Northern Cabinet appointment--so much so that I
shall have to defer them as long as possible to avoid being teased
into insanity, to make changes.
Your obedient servant,
A. LINCOLN
TO E. D. MORGAN
SPRINGFIELD, ILL. FEB. 4, 1861
SIR:--Your letter of the 30th ult. inviting me, on behalf of the
Legislature of New York, to pass through that State on my way to
Washington, and tendering me the hospitalities of her authorities and
people, has been duly received. With the feelings of deep gratitude
to you and them for this testimonial of regard and esteem I beg you
to notify them that I accept the invitation so kindly tendered.
Your obedient servant,
A. LINCOLN
P.S.--Please let the ceremonies be only such as to take the least
time possible. A. L.
PATRONAGE CLAIMS
TO THURLOW WEED
SPRINGFIELD, ILL., February 4, 1861
DEAR SIR:--I have both your letter to myself and that to Judge Davis,
in relation to a certain gentleman in your State claiming to dispense
patronage in my name, and also to be authorized to use my name to
advance the chances of Mr. Greeley for an election to the United
States Senate.
It is very strange that such things should be said by any one. The
gentleman you mention did speak to me of Mr. Greeley in connection
with the senatorial election, and I replied in terms of kindness
toward Mr. Greeley, which I really feel, but always with an expressed
protest that my name must not be used in the senatorial election in
favor of or against any one. Any other representation of me is a
misrepresentation.
As to the matter of dispensing patronage, it perhaps will surprise
you to learn that I have information that you claim to have my
authority to arrange that matter in New York. I do not believe you
have so claimed; but still so some men say. On that subject you know
all I have said to you is "justice to all," and I have said nothing
more particular to any one. I say this to reassure you that I have
not changed my position.
In the hope, however, that you will not use my name in the matter, I
am,
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
FAREWELL ADDRESS AT SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS,
FEBRUARY 11, 1861
MY FRIENDS:--One who has never been placed in a like position cannot
understand my feelings at this hour, nor the oppressive sadness I
feel at this parting. For more than twenty-five years I have lived
among you, and during all that time I have received nothing but
kindness at your hands. Here the most cherished ties of earth were
assumed. Here my children were born, and here one of them lies
buried. To you, my friends, I owe all that I have, all that I am.
All the strange checkered past seems to crowd upon my mind. To-day I
leave you. I go to assume a task more difficult than that which
devolved upon General Washington. Unless the great God who assisted
him shall be with and aid me I cannot prevail; but if the same
almighty arm that directed and protected him shall guide and support
me I shall not fail; I shall succeed. Let us pray that the God of
our fathers may not forsake us now. To Him I commend you all.
Permit me to ask that with equal sincerity and faith you will all
invoke His wisdom and goodness for me.
With these words I must leave you; for how long I know not. Friends,
one and all, I must now wish you an affectionate farewell.
REMARKS AT TOLONO, ILLINOIS, FEBRUARY 11, 1861
I am leaving you on an errand of national importance, attended, as
you are aware, with considerable difficulties. Let us believe, as
some poet has expressed it, "Behind the cloud the sun is still
shining." I bid you an affectionate farewell.
REPLY TO ADDRESS OF WELCOME, INDIANAPOLIS,
INDIANA, FEBRUARY 11, 1861
GOVERNOR MORTON AND FELLOW CITIZENS
OF THE STATE OF INDIANA:
Most heartily do I thank you for this magnificent reception, and
while I cannot take to myself any share of the compliment thus paid,
more than that which pertains to a mere instrument, an accidental
instrument, perhaps I should say, of a great cause, I yet must look
upon it as a most magnificent reception, and as such most heartily do
thank you for it. You have been pleased to address yourself to me
chiefly in behalf of this glorious Union in which we live, in all of
which you have my hearty sympathy, and, as far as may be within my
power, will have, one and inseparable, my hearty consideration.
While I do not expect, upon this occasion, or until I get to
Washington, to attempt any lengthy speech, I will only say to the
salvation of the Union there needs but one single thing--the hearts
of a people like yours.
The people--when they rise in mass in behalf of the Union and the
liberties of their country, truly may it be said, "The gates of hell
cannot prevail against them." In all trying positions in which I
shall be
placed--and, doubtless, I shall be placed in many such--my reliance
will be placed upon you and the people of the United States; and I
wish you to remember, now and forever, that it is your business, and
not mine; that if the union of these States and the liberties of this
people shall be lost, it is but little to any one man of fifty-two
years of age, but a great deal to the thirty millions of people who
inhabit these United States, and to their posterity in all coming
time. It is your business to rise up and preserve the Union and
liberty for yourselves, and not for me.
I desire they should be constitutionally performed. I, as already
intimated, am but an accidental instrument, temporary, and to serve
but for a limited time; and I appeal to you again to constantly bear
in mind that with you, and not with politicians, not with Presidents,
not with office-seekers, but with you is the question, Shall the
Union and shall the liberties of this country be preserved to the
latest generations?
ADDRESS TO THE LEGISLATURE OF INDIANA, AT INDIANAPOLIS,
FEBRUARY 12, 1861
FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF INDIANA:--I am here to thank you much
for this magnificent welcome, and still more for the generous support
given by your State to that political cause which I think is the true
and just cause of the whole country and the whole world.
Solomon says there is "a time to keep silence," and when men wrangle
by the mouth with no certainty that they mean the same thing while
using the same word, it perhaps were as well if they would keep
silence.
The words "coercion" and "invasion" are much used in these days, and
often with some temper and hot blood. Let us make sure, if we can,
the meaning of those who use them. Let us get the exact definitions
of these words, not from dictionaries, but from the men themselves,
who certainly deprecate the things they would represent by the use of
the words.
What, then, is coercion? What is invasion? Would the marching of an
army into South Carolina, without the consent of her people, and with
hostile intent toward them, be invasion? I certainly think it would,
and it would be coercion also, if the South Carolinians were forced
to submit. But if the United States should merely hold and retake
its own forts and other property, and collect the duties on foreign
importations, or even withhold the mails from places where they were
habitually violated, would any or all of these things be invasion or
coercion? Do our professed lovers of the Union, who spitefully
resolve that they will resist coercion and invasion, understand that
such things as these, on the part of the United States, would be
coercion or invasion of a State? If so, their idea of means to
preserve the object of their great affection would seem to be
exceedingly thin and airy. If sick, the little pills of the
homoeopathist would be much too large for it to swallow. In their
view, the Union, as a family relation, would seem to be no regular
marriage, but rather a sort of "free-love" arrangement, to be
maintained on passional attraction.
By the way, in what consists the special sacredness of a State? I
speak not of the position assigned to a State in the Union by the
Constitution, for that is a bond we all recognize. That position,
however, a State cannot carry out of the Union with it. I speak of
that assumed primary right of a State to rule all which is less than
itself, and to ruin all which is larger than itself. If a State and
a county, in a given case, should be equal in number of inhabitants,
in what, as a matter of principle, is the State better than the
county? Would an exchange of name be an exchange of rights? Upon what
principle, upon what rightful principle, may a State, being no more
than one fiftieth part of the nation in soil and population, break up
the nation, and then coerce a proportionably large subdivision of
itself in the most arbitrary way? What mysterious right to play
tyrant is conferred on a district of country, with its people, by
merely calling it a State? Fellow-citizens, I am not asserting
anything. I am merely asking questions for you to consider. And now
allow me to bid you farewell.
INTENTIONS TOWARD THE SOUTH
ADDRESS TO THE MAYOR AND CITIZENS OF
CINCINNATI, OHIO, FEBRUARY 12, 1861
Mr. MAYOR, AND GENTLEMEN:--Twenty-four hours ago, at the capital of
Indiana, I said to myself, "I have never seen so many people
assembled together in winter weather." I am no longer able to say
that. But it is what might reasonably have been expected--that this
great city of Cincinnati would thus acquit herself on such an
occasion. My friends, I am entirely overwhelmed by the magnificence
of the reception which has been given, I will not say to me, but to
the President-elect of the United States of America. Most heartily
do I thank you, one and all, for it.
I have spoken but once before this in Cincinnati. That was a year
previous to the late Presidential election. On that occasion, in a
playful manner, but with sincere words, I addressed much of what I
said to the Kentuckians. I gave my opinion that we, as Republicans,
would ultimately beat them as Democrats, but that they could postpone
that result longer by nominating Senator Douglas for the Presidency
than they could by any other way. They did not, in any true sense of
the word, nominate Mr. Douglas, and the result has come certainly as
soon as ever I expected. I also told them how I expected they would
be treated after they should have been beaten, and I now wish to call
their attention to what I then said upon that subject. I then said:
"When we do as we say, beat you, you perhaps want to know what we
will do with you. I will tell you, as far as I am authorized to
speak for the Opposition, what we mean to do with you. We mean to
treat you, as near as we possibly can, as Washington, Jefferson, and
Madison treated you. We mean to leave you alone, and in no way to
interfere with your institutions; to abide by all and every
compromise of the Constitution, and, in a word, coming back to the
original proposition, to treat you so far as degenerate men, if we
have degenerated, may, according to the example of those noble
fathers, Washington, Jefferson, and Madison.
"We mean to remember that you are as good as we; that there is no
difference between us other than the difference of circumstances. We
mean to recognize and bear in mind always that you have as good
hearts in your bosoms as other people, or as we claim to have, and
treat you accordingly."
Fellow-citizens of Kentucky--friends and brethren, may I call you in
my new position?--I see no occasion and feel no inclination to
retract a word of this. If it shall not be made good, be assured the
fault shall not be mine.
ADDRESS TO THE GERMAN CLUB OF CINCINNATI, OHIO,
FEBRUARY 12, 1861
Mr. CHAIRMAN:--I thank you and those whom you represent for the
compliment you have paid me by tendering me this address. In so far
as there is an allusion to our present national difficulties, which
expresses, as you have said, the views of the gentlemen present, I
shall have to beg pardon for not entering fully upon the questions
which the address you have now read suggests.
I deem it my duty--a duty which I owe to my constituents--to you,
gentlemen, that I should wait until the last moment for a development
of the present national difficulties before I express myself
decidedly as to what course I shall pursue. I hope, then, not to be
false to anything that you have expected of me.
I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that the working men are the basis of
all governments, for the plain reason that they are all the more
numerous, and as you added that those were the sentiments of the
gentlemen present, representing not only the working class, but
citizens of other callings than those of the mechanic, I am happy to
concur with you in these sentiments, not only of the native-born
citizens, but also of the Germans and foreigners from other
countries.
Mr. Chairman, I hold that while man exists it is his duty to improve
not only his own condition, but to assist in ameliorating the
condition of mankind; and therefore, without entering upon the
details of the question, I will simply say that I am for those means
which will give the greatest good to the greatest number.
In regard to the Homestead law, I have to say that, in so far as the
government lands can be disposed of, I am in favor of cutting up the
wild lands into parcels, so that every poor man may have a home.
In regard to the Germans and foreigners, I esteem them no better than
other people, nor any worse. It is not my nature, when I see a
people borne down by the weight of their shackles--the oppression of
tyranny--to make their life more bitter by heaping upon them greater
burdens; but rather would I do all in my power to raise the yoke than
to add anything that would tend to crush them.
Inasmuch as our own country is extensive and new, and the countries
of Europe are densely populated, if there are any abroad who desire
to make this the land of their adoption, it is not in my heart to
throw aught in their way to prevent them from coming to the United
States.
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I will bid you an affectionate farewell.
ADDRESS TO THE LEGISLATURE OF OHIO AT COLUMBUS
FEBRUARY 13, 1861
Mr. PRESIDENT AND Mr. SPEAKER, AND GENTLEMEN OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
OF OHIO:--It is true, as has been said by the president of the
Senate, that very great responsibility rests upon me in the position
to which the votes of the American people have called me. I am
deeply sensible of that weighty responsibility. I cannot but know
what you all know, that without a name, perhaps without a reason why
I should have a name, there has fallen upon me a task such as did not
rest even upon the Father of his Country; and so feeling, I can turn
and look for that support without which it will be impossible for me
to perform that great task. I turn, then, and look to the American
people and to that God who has never forsaken them. Allusion has
been made to the interest felt in relation to the policy of the new
administration. In this I have received from some a degree of credit
for having kept silence, and from others some deprecation. I still
think that I was right.
In the varying and repeatedly shifting scenes of the present, and
without a precedent which could enable me to judge by the past, it
has seemed fitting that before speaking upon the difficulties of the
country I should have gained a view of the whole field, being at
liberty to modify and change the course of policy as future events
may make a change necessary.
I have not maintained silence from any want of real anxiety. It is a
good thing that there is no more than anxiety, for there is nothing
going wrong. It is a consoling circumstance that when we look out
there is nothing that really hurts anybody. We entertain different
views upon political questions, but nobody is suffering anything.
This is a most consoling circumstance, and from it we may conclude
that all we want is time, patience, and a reliance on that God who
has never forsaken this people.
Fellow-citizens, what I have said I have said altogether
extemporaneously, and I will now come to a close.
ADDRESS AT STEUBENVILLE, OHIO,
FEBRUARY 14, 1861
I fear that the great confidence placed in my ability is unfounded.
Indeed, I am sure it is. Encompassed by vast difficulties as I am,
nothing shall be wanting on my part, if sustained by God and the
American people. I believe the devotion to the Constitution is
equally great on both sides of the river. It is only the different
understanding of that instrument that causes difficulty. The only
dispute on both sides is, 'What are their rights?" If the majority
should not rule, who would be the judge? Where is such a judge to be
found? We should all be bound by the majority of the American people;
if not, then the minority must control. Would that be right? Would
it be just or generous? Assuredly not. I reiterate that the majority
should rule. If I adopt a wrong policy, the opportunity for
condemnation will occur in four years' time. Then I can be turned
out, and a better man with better views put in my place.
ADDRESS AT PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA
FEBRUARY 15, 1861
I most cordially thank his Honor Mayor Wilson, and the citizens of
Pittsburg generally, for their flattering reception. I am the more
grateful because I know that it is not given to me alone, but to the
cause I represent, which clearly proves to me their good-will, and
that sincere feeling is at the bottom of it. And here I may remark
that in every short address I have made to the people, in every crowd
through which I have passed of late, some allusion has been made to
the present distracted condition of the country. It is natural to
expect that I should say something on this subject; but to touch upon
it at all would involve an elaborate discussion of a great many
questions and circumstances, requiring more time than I can at
present command, and would, perhaps, unnecessarily commit me upon
matters which have not yet fully developed themselves. The condition
of the country is an extraordinary one, and fills the mind of every
patriot with anxiety. It is my intention to give this subject all
the consideration I possibly can before specially deciding in regard
to it, so that when I do speak it may be as nearly right as possible.
When I do speak I hope I may say nothing in opposition to the spirit
of the Constitution, contrary to the integrity of the Union, or which
will prove inimical to the liberties of the people, or to the peace
of the whole country. And furthermore, when the time arrives for me
to speak on this great subject, I hope I may say nothing to
disappoint the people generally throughout the country, especially if
the expectation has been based upon anything which I may have
heretofore said. Notwithstanding the troubles across the river [the
speaker pointing southwardly across the Monongahela, and smiling],
there is no crisis but an artificial one. What is there now to
warrant the condition of affairs presented by our friends over the
river? Take even their own view of the questions involved, and there
is nothing to justify the course they are pursuing. I repeat, then,
there is no crisis, excepting such a one as may be gotten up at any
time by turbulent men aided by designing politicians, My advice to
them, under such circumstances, is to keep cool. If the great
American people only keep their temper on both sides of the line, the
troubles will come to an end, and the question which now distracts
the country will be settled, just as surely as all other difficulties
of a like character which have originated in this government have
been adjusted. Let the people on both sides keep their
self-possession, and just as other clouds have cleared away in due
time, so will this great nation continue to prosper as heretofore.
But, fellow-citizens, I have spoken longer on this subject than I
intended at the outset.
It is often said that the tariff is the specialty of Pennsylvania.
Assuming that direct taxation is not to be adopted, the tariff
question must be as durable as the government itself. It is a
question of national housekeeping. It is to the government what
replenishing the meal-tub is to the family. Every varying
circumstances will require frequent modifications as to the amount
needed and the sources of supply. So far there is little difference
of opinion among the people. It is as to whether, and how far,
duties on imports shall be adjusted to favor home production in the
home market, that controversy begins. One party insists that such
adjustment oppresses one class for the advantage of another; while
the other party argues that, with all its incidents, in the long run
all classes are benefited. In the Chicago platform there is a plank
upon this subject which should be a general law to the incoming
administration. We should do neither more nor less than we gave the
people reason to believe we would when they gave us their votes.
Permit me, fellow-citizens, to read the tariff plank of the Chicago
platform, or rather have it read in your hearing by one who has
younger eyes.
[Mr. Lincoln's private secretary then read Section 12 of the Chicago
platform, as follows:
"That, while providing revenue for the support of the General
Government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an
adjustment of these imposts as will encourage the development of the
industrial interest of the whole country; and we commend that policy
of national exchanges which secures to working-men liberal wages, to
agriculture remunerating prices, to mechanics and manufacturers
adequate return for their skill, labor, and enterprise, and to the
nation commercial prosperity and independence."
As with all general propositions, doubtless, there will be shades of
difference in construing this. I have by no means a thoroughly
matured judgment upon this subject, especially as to details; some
general ideas are about all. I have long thought it would be to our
advantage to produce any necessary article at home which can be made
of as good quality and with as little labor at home as abroad, at
least by the difference of the carrying from abroad. In such case
the carrying is demonstrably a dead loss of labor. For instance,
labor being the true standard of value, is it not plain that if equal
labor get a bar of railroad iron out of a mine in England and another
out of a mine in Pennsylvania, each can be laid down in a track at
home cheaper than they could exchange countries, at least by the
carriage? If there be a present cause why one can be both made and
carried cheaper in money price than the other can be made without
carrying, that cause is an unnatural and injurious one, and ought
gradually, if not rapidly, to be removed. The condition of the
treasury at this time would seem to render an early revision of the
tariff indispensable. The Morrill [tariff] bill, now pending before
Congress, may or may not become a law. I am not posted as to its
particular provisions, but if they are generally satisfactory, and
the bill shall now pass, there will be an end for the present. If,
however, it shall not pass, I suppose the whole subject will be one
of the most pressing and important for the next Congress. By the
Constitution, the executive may recommend measures which he may think
proper, and he may veto those he thinks improper, and it is supposed
that he may add to these certain indirect influences to affect the
action of Congress. My political education strongly inclines me
against a very free use of any of these means by the executive to
control the legislation of the country. As a rule, I think it better
that Congress should originate as well as perfect its measures
without external bias. I therefore would rather recommend to every
gentleman who knows he is to be a member of the next Congress to take
an enlarged view, and post himself thoroughly, so as to contribute
his part to such an adjustment of the tariff as shall produce a
sufficient revenue, and in its other bearings, so far as possible, be
just and equal to all sections of the country and classes of the
people.
ADDRESS AT CLEVELAND, OHIO,
FEBRUARY 15, 1861
Mr. CHAIRMAN AND FELLOW-CITIZENS OF CLEVELAND:--We have been marching
about two miles through snow, rain, and deep mud. The large numbers
that have turned out under these circumstances testify that you are
in earnest about something or other. But do I think so meanly of you
as to suppose that that earnestness is about me personally? I would
be doing you an injustice to suppose you did. You have assembled to
testify your respect for the Union, the Constitution, and the laws;
and here let me say that it is with you, the people, to advance the
great cause of the Union and the Constitution, and not with any one
man. It rests with you alone. This fact is strongly impressed upon
my mind at present. In a community like this, whose appearance
testifies to their intelligence, I am convinced that the cause of
liberty and the Union can never be in danger. Frequent allusion is
made to the excitement at present existing in our national politics,
and it is as well that I should also allude to it here. I think that
there is no occasion for any excitement. 'The crisis, as it is
called, is altogether an artificial crisis. In all parts of the
nation there are differences of opinion on politics. There are
differences of opinion even here. You did not all vote for the
person who now addresses you. What is happening now will not hurt
those who are farther away from here. Have they not all their rights
now as they ever have had? Do they not have their fugitive slaves
returned now as ever? Have they not the same Constitution that they
have lived under for seventy-odd years? Have they not a position as
citizens of this common country, and have we any power to change that
position? What, then, is the matter with them? Why all this
excitement? Why all these complaints?
As I said before, this crisis is all artificial! It has no foundation
in facts. It is not argued up, as the saying is, and cannot,
therefore, be argued down. Let it alone and it will go down of
itself.
[Mr. Lincoln then said that they must be content with a few words
from him, as he was tired, etc. Having been given to understand that
the crowd was not all Republican, but consisted of men of all
parties, he continued:]
This is as it should be. If Judge Douglas had been elected and had
been here on his way to Washington, as I am to-night, the Republicans
should have joined his supporters in welcoming him, just as his
friends have joined with mine tonight. If all do not join now to
save the good old ship of the Union this voyage, nobody will have a
chance to pilot her on another voyage.
ADDRESS AT BUFFALO, NEW YORK,
FEBRUARY 16, 1861
Mr. MAYOR AND FELLOW-CITIZENS OF BUFFALO AND THE STATE OF NEW YORK:--
I am here to thank you briefly for this grand reception given to me,
not personally, but as the representative of our great and beloved
country. Your worthy mayor has been pleased to mention, in his
address to me, the fortunate and agreeable journey which I have had
from home, on my rather circuitous route to the Federal capital. I
am very happy that he was enabled in truth to congratulate myself and
company on that fact. It is true we have had nothing thus far. to
mar the pleasure of the trip. We have not been met alone by those
who assisted in giving the election to me--I say not alone by them,
but by the whole population of the country through which we have
passed. This is as it should be. Had the election fallen to any
other of the distinguished candidates instead of myself, under the
peculiar circumstances, to say the least, it would have been proper
for all citizens to have greeted him as you now greet me. It is an
evidence of the devotion of the whole people to the Constitution, the
Union, and the perpetuity of the liberties of this country. I am
unwilling on any occasion that I should be so meanly thought of as to
have it supposed for a moment that these demonstrations are tendered
to me personally. They are tendered to the country, to the
institutions of the country, and to the perpetuity of the liberties
of the country, for which these institutions were made and created.
Your worthy mayor has thought fit to express the hope that I may be
able to relieve the country from the present, or, I should say, the
threatened difficulties. I am sure I bring a heart true to the work.
For the ability to perform it, I must trust in that Supreme Being who
has never forsaken this favored land, through the instrumentality of
this great and intelligent people. Without that assistance I shall
surely fail; with it, I cannot fail. When we speak of threatened
difficulties to the Country, it is natural that it should be expected
that something should be said by myself with regard to particular
measures. Upon more mature reflection, however, others will agree
with me that, when it is considered that these difficulties are
without precedent, and have never been acted upon by any individual
situated as I am, it is most proper I should wait and see the
developments, and get all the light possible, so that when I do speak
authoritatively, I may be as near right as possible. When I shall
speak authoritatively, I hope to say nothing inconsistent with the
Constitution, the Union, the rights of all the States, of each State,
and of each section of the country, and not to disappoint the
reasonable expectations of those who have confided to me their votes.
In this connection allow me to say that you, as a portion of the
great American people, need only to maintain your composure, stand up
to your sober convictions of right, to your obligations to the
Constitution, and act in accordance with those sober convictions, and
the clouds now on the horizon will be dispelled, and we shall have a
bright and glorious future; and when this generation has passed away,
tens of thousands will inhabit this country where only thousands
inhabit it now. I do not propose to address you at length; I have no
voice for it. Allow me again to thank you for this magnificent
reception, and bid you farewell.
ADDRESS AT ROCHESTER, NEW YORK,
FEBRUARY 18, 1861
I confess myself, after having seen many large audiences since
leaving home, overwhelmed with this vast number of faces at this hour
of the morning. I am not vain enough to believe that you are here
from any wish to see me as an individual, but because I am for the
time being the representative of the American people. I could not,
if I would, address you at any length. I have not the strength, even
if I had the time, for a speech at each of these many interviews that
are afforded me on my way to Washington. I appear merely to see you,
and to let you see me, and to bid you. farewell. I hope it will be
understood that it is from no disinclination to oblige anybody that I
do not address you at greater length.
ADDRESS AT SYRACUSE, NEW YORK,
FEBRUARY 18, 1861.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--I See you have erected a very fine and
handsome platform here for me, and I presume you expected me to speak
from it. If I should go upon it, you would imagine that I was about
to deliver you a much longer speech than I am. I wish you to
understand that I mean no discourtesy to you by thus declining. I
intend discourtesy to no one. But I wish you to understand that,
though I am unwilling to go upon this platform, you are not at
liberty to draw inferences concerning any other platform with which
my name has been or is connected. I wish you long life and
prosperity individually, and pray that with the perpetuity of those
institutions under which we have all so long lived and prospered, our
happiness may be secured, our future made brilliant, and the glorious
destiny of our country established forever. I bid you a kind
farewell.
ADDRESS AT UTICA, NEW YORK,
FEBRUARY 18, 1860
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--I have no speech to make to you; and no time
to speak in. I appear before you that I may see you, and that you
may see me; and I am willing to admit that so far as the ladies are
concerned I have the best of the bargain, though I wish it to be
understood that I do not make the same acknowledgment concerning the
men.
REPLY TO THE MAYOR OF ALBANY, NEW YORK
FEBRUARY 18, 1861.
MR. MAYOR:--I can hardly appropriate to myself the flattering terms
in which you communicate the tender of this reception, as personal to
myself. I most gratefully accept the hospitalities tendered to me,
and will not detain you or the audience with any extended remarks at
this time. I presume that in the two or three courses through which
I shall have to go, I shall have to repeat somewhat, and I will
therefore only express to you my thanks for this kind reception.
REPLY TO GOVERNOR MORGAN OF NEW YORK, AT ALBANY,
FEBRUARY 18, 1861.
GOVERNOR MORGAN:--I was pleased to receive an invitation to visit the
capital of the great Empire State of this nation while on my way to
the Federal capital. I now thank you, Mr. Governor, and you, the
people of the capital of the State of New York, for this most hearty
and magnificent welcome. If I am not at fault, the great Empire
State at this time contains a larger population than did the whole of
the United States of America at the time they achieved their national
independence, and I was proud--to be invited to visit its capital, to
meet its citizens, as I now have the honor to do. I am notified by
your governor that this reception is tendered by citizens without
distinction of party. Because of this I accept it the more gladly.
In this country, and in any country where freedom of thought is
tolerated, citizens attach themselves to political parties. It is
but an ordinary degree of charity to attribute this act to the
supposition that, in thus attaching themselves to the various
parties, each man in his own judgment supposes he thereby best
advances the interests of the whole country. And when an election is
past it is altogether befitting a free people, as I suppose, that,
until the next election, they should be one people. The reception
you have extended me to-day is not given to me personally,--it should
not be so,--but as the representative, for the time being, of the
majority of the nation. If the election had fallen to any of the
more distinguished citizens who received the support of the people,
this same honor should have greeted him that greets me this day, in
testimony of the universal, unanimous devotion of the whole people to
the Constitution, the Union, and to the perpetual liberties of
succeeding generations in this country.
I have neither the voice nor the strength to address you at any
greater length. I beg you will therefore accept my most grateful
thanks for this manifest devotion--not to me, but the institutions of
this great and glorious country.
ADDRESS TO THE LEGISLATURE OF NEW YORK, AT ALBANY,
FEBRUARY 18, 1861.
MR. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF
NEW YORK:--It is with feelings of great diffidence, and, I may say,
with feelings of awe, perhaps greater than I have recently
experienced, that I meet you here in this place. The history of this
great State, the renown of those great men who have stood here, and
have spoken here, and have been heard here, all crowd around my
fancy, and incline me to shrink from any attempt to address you. Yet
I have some confidence given me by the generous manner in which you
have invited me, and by the still more generous manner in which you
have received me, to speak further. You have invited and received me
without distinction of party. I cannot for a moment suppose that
this has been done in any considerable degree with reference to my
personal services, but that it is done in so far as I am regarded, at
this time, as the representative of the majesty of this great nation.
I doubt not this is the truth, and the whole truth of the case, and
this is as it should be. It is much more gratifying to me that this
reception has been given to me as the elected representative of a
free people, than it could possibly be if tendered merely as an
evidence of devotion to me, or to any one man personally.
And now I think it were more fitting that I should close these hasty
remarks. It is true that, while I hold myself, without mock modesty,
the humblest of all individuals that have ever been elevated to the
Presidency, I have a more difficult task to perform than any one of
them.
You have generously tendered me the support--the united support--of
the great Empire State. For this, in behalf of the nation--in behalf
of the present and future of the nation--in behalf of civil and
religious liberty for all time to come, most gratefully do I thank
you. I do not propose to enter into an explanation of any particular
line of policy, as to our present difficulties, to be adopted by the
incoming administration. I deem it just to you, to myself, to all,
that I should see everything, that I should hear everything, that I
should have every light that can be brought within my reach, in order
that, when I do so speak, I shall have enjoyed every opportunity to
take correct and true ground; and for this reason I do not propose to
speak at this time of the policy of the Government. But when the
time comes, I shall speak, as well as I am able, for the good of the
present and future of this country for the good both of the North and
of the South--for the good of the one and the other, and of all
sections of the country. In the meantime, if we have patience, if we
restrain ourselves, if we allow ourselves not to run off in a
passion, I still have confidence that the Almighty, the Maker of the
universe, will, through the instrumentality of this great and
intelligent people, bring us through this as He has through all the
other difficulties of our country. Relying on this, I again thank you
for this generous reception.
ADDRESS AT TROY, NEW YORK,
FEBRUARY 19, 1861
MR. MAYOR AND CITIZENS OF TROY:--I thank you very kindly for this
great reception. Since I left my home it has not been my fortune to
meet an assemblage more numerous and more orderly than this. I am
the more gratified at this mark of your regard since you assure me it
is tendered, not to the individual but to the high office you have
called me to fill. I have neither strength nor time to make any
extended remarks on this occasion, and I can only repeat to you my
sincere thanks for the kind reception you have thought proper to
extend to me.
ADDRESS AT POUGHKEEPSIE, NEW YORK,
FEBRUARY 19, 1861
FELLOW-CITIZENS:--It is altogether impossible I should make myself
heard by any considerable portion of this vast assemblage; but,
although I appear before you mainly for the purpose of seeing you,
and to let you see rather than hear me, I cannot refrain from saying
that I am highly gratified--as much here, indeed, under the
circumstances, as I have been anywhere on my route--to witness this
noble demonstration--made, not in honor of an individual, but of the
man who at this time humbly, but earnestly, represents the majesty of
the nation.
This reception, like all the others that have been tendered to me,
doubtless emanates from all the political parties, and not from one
alone. As such I accept it the more gratefully, since it indicates
an earnest desire on the part of the whole people, with out regard to
political differences, to save--not the country, because the country
will save itself but to save the institutions of the country, those
institutions under which, in the last three quarters of a century, we
have grown to a great, and intelligent, and a happy people--the
greatest, the most intelligent, and the happiest people in the world.
These noble manifestations indicate, with unerring certainty, that
the whole people are willing to make common cause for this object;
that if, as it ever must be, some have been successful in the recent
election and some have been beaten, if some are satisfied and some
are dissatisfied, the defeated party are not in favor of sinking the
ship, but are desirous of running it through the tempest in safety,
and willing, if they think the people have committed an error in
their verdict now, to wait in the hope of reversing it and setting it
right next time. I do not say that in the recent election the people
did the wisest thing, that could have been done--indeed, I do not
think they did; but I do say that in accepting the great trust
committed to me, which I do with a determination to endeavor to prove
worthy of it, I must rely upon you, upon the people of the whole
country, for support; and with their sustaining aid, even I, humble
as I am, cannot fail to carry the ship of state safely through the
storm.
I have now only to thank you warmly for your kind attendance, and bid
you all an affectionate farewell.
ADDRESS AT HUDSON, NEW YORK,.
FEBRUARY 19, 1860
FELLOW-CITIZENS:--I see that you are providing a platform for me. I
shall have to decline standing upon it, because the president of the
company tells me that I shall not have time to wait until it is
brought to me. As I said yesterday, under similar circumstances at
another gathering, you must not draw the inference that I have any
intention of deserting any platform with which I have a legitimate
connection because I do not stand on yours. Allow me to thank you
for this splendid reception, and I now bid you farewell.
ADDRESS AT PEEKSKILL, NEW YORK,
FEBRUARY 19, 1861
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--I have but a moment to stand before you to
listen to and return your kind greeting. I thank you for this
reception, and for the pleasant manner in which it is tendered to me
by our mutual friends. I will say in a single sentence, in regard to
the difficulties that lie before me and our beloved country, that if
I can only be as generously and unanimously sustained as the
demonstrations I have witnessed indicate I shall be, I shall not
fail; but without your sustaining hands I am sure that neither I nor
any other man can hope to surmount these difficulties. I trust that
in the course I shall pursue I shall be sustained not only by the
party that elected me, but by the patriotic people of the whole
country.
ADDRESS AT FISHKILL LANDING
FEBRUARY 19, 1861
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--I appear before you not to make a speech. I
have not sufficient time, if I had the strength, to repeat speeches
at every station where the people kindly gather to welcome me as we
go along. If I had the strength, and should take the time, I should
not get to Washington until after the inauguration, which you must be
aware would not fit exactly. That such an untoward event might not
transpire, I know you will readily forego any further remarks; and I
close by bidding you farewell.
REMARKS AT THE ASTOR HOUSE, NEW YORK CITY, FEBRUARY 19, 1861
FELLOW-CITIZENS:--I have stepped before you merely in compliance with
what appears to be your wish, and not with the purpose of making a
speech. I do not propose making a speech this afternoon. I could
not be heard by any but a small fraction of you, at best; but, what
is still worse than that, I have nothing just now to say that is
worthy of your hearing. I beg you to believe that I do not now
refuse to address you from any disposition to disoblige you, but to
the contrary. But, at the same time, I beg of you to excuse me for
the present.
ADDRESS AT NEW YORK CITY,
FEBRUARY 19, 1861
Mr. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN:--I am rather an old man to avail myself
of such an excuse as I am now about to do. Yet the truth is so
distinct, and presses itself so distinctly upon me, that I cannot
well avoid it--and that is, that I did not understand when I was
brought into this room that I was to be brought here to make a
speech. It was not intimated to me that I was brought into the room
where Daniel Webster and Henry Clay had made speeches, and where one
in my position might be expected to do something like those men or
say something worthy of myself or my audience. I therefore beg you
to make allowance for the circumstances in which I have been by
surprise brought before you. Now I have been in the habit of
thinking and sometimes speaking upon political questions that have
for some years past agitated the country; and, if I were disposed to
do so, and we could take up some one of the issues, as the lawyers
call them, and I were called upon to make an argument about it to the
best of my ability, I could do so without much preparation. But that
is not what you desire to have done here to-night.
I have been occupying a position, since the Presidential election, of
silence--of avoiding public speaking, of avoiding public writing. I
have been doing so because I thought, upon full consideration, that
was the proper course for me to take. I am brought before you now,
and required to make a speech, when you all approve more than
anything else of the fact that I have been keeping silence. And now
it seems to me that the response you give to that remark ought to
justify me in closing just here. I have not kept silence since the
Presidential election from any party wantonness, or from any
indifference to the anxiety that pervades the minds of men about the
aspect of the political affairs of this country. I have kept silence
for the reason that I supposed it was peculiarly proper that I should
do so until the time came when, according to the custom of the
country, I could speak officially.
I still suppose that, while the political drama being enacted in this
country at this time is rapidly shifting its scenes--forbidding an
anticipation with any degree of certainty to-day of what we shall see
to-morrow--it is peculiarly fitting that I should see it all, up to
the last minute, before I should take ground that I might be
disposed, by the shifting of the scenes afterward, also to shift. I
have said several times upon this journey, and I now repeat it to
you, that when the time does come, I shall then take the ground that
I think is right--right for the North, for the South, for the East,
for the West, for the whole country. And in doing so I hope to feel
no necessity pressing upon me to say anything in conflict with the
Constitution, in conflict with the continued union of these States,
in conflict with the perpetuation of the liberties of this people, or
anything in conflict with anything whatever that I have ever given
you reason to expect from me. And now, my friends, have I said
enough? [Loud cries of "No, no !" and' Three cheers for LINCOLN!"]
Now, my friends, there appears to be a difference of opinion between
you and me, and I really feel called upon to decide the question
myself.
REPLY TO THE MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY,
FEBRUARY 20, 1861
Mr. MAYOR:--It is with feelings of deep gratitude that I make my
acknowledgments for the reception that has been given me in the great
commercial city of New York. I cannot but remember that it is done
by the people who do not, by a large majority, agree with me in
political sentiment. It is the more grateful to me because in this I
see that for the great principles of our Government the people are
pretty nearly or quite unanimous. In regard to the difficulties that
confront us at this time, and of which you have seen fit to speak so
becomingly and so justly, I can only say I agree with the sentiments
expressed. In my devotion to the Union I hope I am behind no man in
the nation. As to my wisdom in conducting affairs so as to tend to
the preservation of the Union, I fear too great confidence may have
been placed in me. I am sure I bring a heart devoted to the work.
There is nothing that could ever bring me to consent--willingly to
consent--to the destruction of this Union (in which not only the
great city of New York, but the whole country, has acquired its
greatness), unless it would be that thing for which the Union itself
was made. I understand that the ship is made for the carrying and
preservation of the cargo; and so long as the ship is safe with the
cargo, it shall not be abandoned. This Union shall never be
abandoned, unless the possibility of its existence shall cease to
exist without the necessity of throwing passengers and cargo
overboard. So long, then, as it is possible that the prosperity and
liberties of this people can be preserved within this Union, it shall
be my purpose at all tunes to preserve it. And now, Mr. Mayor,
renewing my thanks for this cordial reception, allow me to come to a
close.
ADDRESS AT JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY
FEBRUARY 21, 1860
MR. DAYTON AND GENTLEMEN OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY:--I shall only
thank you briefly for this very kind reception given me, not
personally, but as the temporary representative of the majesty of the
nation. To the kindness of your hearts, and of the hearts of your
brethren in your State, I should be very proud to respond, but I
shall not have strength to address you or other assemblages at
length, even if I had the time to do so. I appear before you,
therefore, for little else than to greet you, and to briefly say
farewell. You have done me the very high honor to present your
reception courtesies to me through your great man a man with whom it
is an honor to be associated anywhere, and in owning whom no State
can be poor. He has said enough, and by the saying of it suggested
enough, to require a response of an hour, well considered. I could
not in an hour make a worthy response to it. I therefore, ladies and
gentlemen of New Jersey, content myself with saying, most heartily do
I indorse all the sentiments he has expressed. Allow me, most
gratefully, to bid you farewell.
REPLY TO THE MAYOR OF NEWARK, NEW JERSEY,
FEBRUARY 21, 1861.
MR. MAYOR:--I thank you for this reception at the city of Newark.
With regard to the great work of which you speak, I will say that I
bring to it a heart filled with love for my country, and an honest
desire to do what is right. I am sure, however, that I have not the
ability to do anything unaided of God, and that without His support
and that of this free, happy, prosperous, and intelligent people, no
man can succeed in doing that the importance of which we all
comprehend. Again thanking you for the reception you have given me,
I will now bid you farewell, and proceed upon my journey.
ADDRESS IN TRENTON AT THE TRENTON HOUSE,
FEBRUARY 21, 1861
I have been invited by your representatives to the Legislature to
visit this the capital of your honored State, and in acknowledging
their kind invitation, compelled to respond to the welcome of the
presiding officers of each body, and I suppose they intended I should
speak to you through them, as they are the representatives of all of
you; and if I were to speak again here, I should only have to repeat
in a great measure much that I have said, which would be disgusting
to my friends around me who have met here. I have no speech to make,
but merely appear to see you and let you look at me; and as to the
latter I think I have greatly the best of the bargain. My friends,
allow me to bid you farewell.
ADDRESS TO THE SENATE OF NEW JERSEY
FEBRUARY 21, 1861
MR. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN OF THE SENATE OF THE STATE OF NEW
JERSEY:--I am very grateful to you for the honorable reception of
which I have been the object. I cannot but remember the place that
New Jersey holds in our early history. In the Revolutionary struggle
few of the States among the Old Thirteen had more of the battle-
fields of the country within their limits than New Jersey. May I be
pardoned if, upon this occasion, I mention that away back in my
childhood, the earliest days of my being able to read, I got hold of
a small book, such a one as few of the younger members have ever seen
Weems's Life of Washington. I remember all the accounts there given
of the battle-fields and struggles for the liberties of the country;
and none fixed themselves upon my imagination so deeply as the
struggle here at Trenton, New Jersey. The crossing of the river, the
contest with the Hessians, the great hardships endured at that time,
all fixed themselves on my memory more than any single Revolutionary
event; and you all know, for you have all been boys, how these early
impressions last longer than any others. I recollect thinking then,
boy even though I was, that there must have been something more than
common that these men struggled for. I am exceedingly anxious that
that thing that something even more than national independence, that
something that held out a great promise to all the people of the
world to all time to come--I am exceedingly anxious that this Union,
the Constitution, and the liberties of the people shall be
perpetuated in accordance with the original idea for which that
struggle was made; and I shall be most happy indeed if I shall be a
humble instrument in the hands of the Almighty, and of this his
almost chosen people, for perpetuating the object of that great
struggle. You give me this reception, as I understand, without
distinction of party. I learn that this body is composed of a
majority of gentlemen who, in the exercise of their best judgment in
the choice of a chief magistrate, did not think I was the man. I
understand, nevertheless, that they come forward here to greet me as
the constitutionally elected President of the United States--as
citizens of the United States to meet the man who, for the time
being, is the representative of the majesty of the nation--united by
the single purpose to perpetuate the Constitution, the union, and the
liberties of the people. As such, I accept this reception more
gratefully than I could do did I believe it were tendered to me as an
individual.
ADDRESS TO THE ASSEMBLY OF NEW JERSEY,
FEBRUARY 21, 1861
MR. SPEAKER AND GENTLEMEN: I have just enjoyed the honor of a
reception by the other branch of this Legislature, and I return to
you and them my thanks for the reception which the people of New
Jersey have given through their chosen representatives to me as the
representative, for the time being, of the majesty of the people of
the United States. I appropriate to myself very little of the
demonstrations of respect with which I have been greeted. I think
little should be given to any man, but that it should be a
manifestation of adherence to the Union and the Constitution.
I understand myself to be received here by the representatives of the
people of New Jersey, a majority of whom differ in opinion from those
with whom I have acted. This manifestation is therefore to be
regarded by me as expressing their devotion to the Union, the
Constitution, and the liberties of the people.
You, Mr. Speaker, have well said that this is a time when the bravest
and wisest look with doubt and awe upon the aspect presented by our
national affairs. Under these circumstances you will readily see why
I should not speak in detail of the course I shall deem it best to
pursue. It is proper that I should avail myself of all the
information and all the time at my command, in order that when the
time arrives in which I must speak officially, I shall be able to
take the ground which I deem best and safest, and from which I may
have no occasion to swerve. I shall endeavor to take the ground I
deem most just to the North, the East, the West, the South, and the
whole country. I shall take it, I hope, in good temper, certainly
with no malice toward, any section. I shall do all that may be in my
power to promote a peaceful settlement of all our difficulties. The
man does not live who is more devoted to peace than I am, none who
would do more to preserve it, but it may be necessary to put the foot
down firmly. And if I do my duty and do right, you will sustain me,
will you not? [Loud cheers, and cries of "Yes, yes; we will."]
Received as I am by the members of a Legislature the majority of whom
do not agree with me in political sentiments, I trust that I may have
their assistance in piloting the ship of state through this voyage,
surrounded by perils as it is; for if it should suffer wreck now,
there will be no pilot ever needed for another voyage.
Gentlemen, I have already spoken longer than I intended, and must beg
leave to stop here.
REPLY TO THE MAYOR OF PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA,
FEBRUARY 21, 1861
MR. MAYOR AND FELLOW-CITIZENS OF PHILADELPHIA:--I appear before you
to make no lengthy speech, but to thank you for this reception. The
reception you have given me to-night is not to me, the man, the
individual, but to the man who temporarily represents, or should
represent, the majesty of the nation. It is true, as your worthy
mayor has said, that there is great anxiety amongst the citizens of
the United States at this time. I deem it a happy circumstance that
this dissatisfied portion of our fellow-citizens does not point us to
anything in which they are being injured or about to be injured; for
which reason I have felt all the while justified in concluding that
the crisis, the panic, the anxiety of the country at this time is
artificial. If there be those who differ with me upon this subject,
they have not pointed out the substantial difficulty that exists.
I do not mean to say that an artificial panic may not do considerable
harm; that it has done such I do not deny. The hope that has been
expressed by your mayor, that I may be able to restore peace,
harmony, and prosperity to the country, is most worthy of him; and
most happy, indeed, will I be if I shall be able to verify and fulfil
that hope. I promise you that I bring to the work a sincere heart.
Whether I will bring a head equal to that heart will be for future
times to determine. It were useless for me to speak of details of
plans now; I shall speak officially next Monday week, if ever. If I
should not speak then, it were useless for me to do so now. If I do
speak then, it is useless for me to do so now. When I do speak, I
shall take such ground as I deem best calculated to restore peace,
harmony, and prosperity to the country, and tend to the perpetuity of
the nation and the liberty of these States and these people. Your
worthy mayor has expressed the wish, in which I join with him, that
it were convenient for me to remain in your city long enough to
consult your merchants and manufacturers; or, as it were, to listen
to those breathings rising within the consecrated walls wherein the
Constitution of the United States and, I will add, the Declaration of
Independence, were originally framed and adopted. I assure you and
your mayor that I had hoped on this occasion, and upon all occasions
during my life, that I shall do nothing inconsistent with the
teachings of these holy and most sacred walls. I have never asked
anything that does not breathe from those walls. All my political
warfare has been in favor of the teachings that come forth from these
sacred walls. May my right hand forget its cunning and my tongue
cleave to the roof of my mouth if ever I prove false to those
teachings. Fellow-citizens, I have addressed you longer than I
expected to do, and now allow me to bid you goodnight.
ADDRESS IN THE HALL OF INDEPENDENCE, PHILADELPHIA,
FEBRUARY 22, 1861
MR. CUYLER:--I am filled with deep emotion at finding myself standing
here, in this place, where were collected together the wisdom, the
devotion to principle, from which sprang the institutions under which
we live. You have kindly suggested to me that in my hands is the task
of restoring peace to the present distracted condition of the
country. I can say in return, sir, that all the political sentiments
I entertain have been drawn, so far as I have been able to draw them,
from the sentiments which originated and were given to the world from
this hall. I have never had a feeling politically that did not
spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of
Independence. I have often pondered over the dangers which were
incurred by the men who assembled here and framed and adopted that
Declaration of Independence. I have pondered over the toils that
were endured by the officers and soldiers of the army who achieved
that independence. I have often inquired of myself what great
principle or idea it was that kept the confederacy so long together.
It was not the mere matter of separation of the colonies from the
motherland, but that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence
which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I
hope, to the world for all future time. It was that which gave
promise that in due time the weight would be lifted from the
shoulders of all men. This is the sentiment embodied in the
Declaration of Independence. Now, my friends, can the country be
saved upon that basis? If it can, I will consider myself one of the
happiest men in the world if I can help to save it. If it cannot be
saved upon that principle, it will be truly awful. But if this
country cannot be saved without giving up that principle, I was about
to say I would rather be assassinated on this spot than surrender it.
Now, in my view of the present aspect of affairs, there need be no
bloodshed or war. There is no necessity for it. I am not in favor
of such a course, and I may say, in advance, that there will be no
bloodshed unless it is forced upon the Government, and then it will
be compelled to act in self-defence.
My friends; this is wholly an unexpected speech, and I did not expect
to be called upon to say a word when I came here. I supposed it was
merely to do something toward raising the flag. I may, therefore,
have said something indiscreet. I have said nothing but what I am
willing to live by and, if it be the pleasure of Almighty God, die
by.
REPLY TO THE WILMINGTON DELEGATION,
FEBRUARY 22, 1861
MR. CHAIRMAN:--I feel highly flattered by the encomiums you have seen
fit to bestow upon me. Soon after the nomination of General Taylor,
I attended a political meeting in the city of Wilmington, and have
since carried with me a fond remembrance of the hospitalities of the
city on that occasion. The programme established provides for my
presence in Harrisburg in twenty-four hours from this time. I expect
to be in Washington on Saturday. It is, therefore, an impossibility
that I should accept your kind invitation. There are no people whom
I would more gladly accommodate than those of Delaware; but
circumstances forbid, gentlemen. With many regrets for the character
of the reply I am compelled to give you, I bid you adieu.
ADDRESS AT LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA,
FEBRUARY 22, 1860
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF OLD LANCASTER:--I appear not to make a
speech. I have not time to make a speech at length, and not strength
to make them on every occasion; and, worse than all, I have none to
make. There is plenty of matter to speak about in these times, but
it is well known that the more a man speaks the less he is
understood--the more he says one thing, the more his adversaries
contend he meant something else. I shall soon have occasion to speak
officially, and then I will endeavor to put my thoughts just as plain
as I can express myself--true to the Constitution and Union of all
the States, and to the perpetual liberty of all the people. Until I
so speak, there is no need to enter upon details. In conclusion, I
greet you most heartily, and bid you an affectionate farewell.
ADDRESS TO THE LEGISLATURE OF PENNSYLVANIA, AT HARRISBURG,
FEBRUARY 22, 1861
MR. SPEAKER OF THE SENATE, AND ALSO MR. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, AND GENTLEMEN OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE
OF PENNSYLVANIA:--I appear before you only for a very few brief
remarks in response to what has been said to me. I thank you most
sincerely for this reception, and the generous words in which support
has been promised me upon this occasion. I thank your great
commonwealth for the overwhelming support it recently gave, not me
personally, but the cause which I think a just one, in the late
election.
Allusion has been made to the fact--the interesting fact perhaps we
should say--that I for the first time appear at the capital of the
great commonwealth of Pennsylvania upon the birthday of the Father of
his Country. In connection with that beloved anniversary connected
with the history of this country, I have already gone through one
exceedingly interesting scene this morning in the ceremonies at
Philadelphia. Under the kind conduct of gentlemen there, I was for
the first time allowed the privilege of standing in old Independence
Hall to have a few words addressed to me there, and opening up to me
an opportunity of manifesting my deep regret that I had not more time
to express something of my own feelings excited by the occasion, that
had been really the feelings of my whole life.
Besides this, our friends there had provided a magnificent flag of
the country. They had arranged it so that I was given the honor of
raising it to the head of its staff, and when it went up I was
pleased that it went to its place by the strength of my own feeble
arm. When, according to the arrangement, the cord was pulled, and it
floated gloriously to the wind, without an accident, in the bright,
glowing sunshine of the morning, I could not help hoping that there
was in the entire success of that beautiful ceremony at least
something of an omen of what is to come. Nor could I help feeling
then, as I have often felt, that in the whole of that proceeding I
was a very humbled instrument. I had not provided the flag; I had
not made the arrangements for elevating it to its place; I had
applied but a very small portion of even my feeble strength in
raising it. In the whole transaction I was in the hands of the
people who had arranged it, and if I can have the same generous
co-operation of the people of this nation, I think the flag of our
country may yet be kept flaunting gloriously.
I recur for a moment but to repeat some words uttered at the hotel in
regard to what has been said about the military support which the
General Government may expect from the commonwealth of Pennsylvania
in a proper emergency. To guard against any possible mistake do I
recur to this. It is not with any pleasure that I contemplate the
possibility that a necessity may arise in this country for the use of
the military arm. While I am exceedingly gratified to see the
manifestation upon your streets of your military force here, and
exceedingly gratified at your promise to use that force upon a proper
emergency--while I make these acknowledgments I desire to repeat, in
order to preclude any possible misconstruction, that I do most
sincerely hope that we shall have no use for them; that it will never
become their duty to shed blood, and most especially never to shed
fraternal blood. I promise that so far as I may have wisdom to
direct, if so painful a result shall in any wise be brought about, it
shall he through no fault of mine.
Allusion has also been made by one of your honored speakers to some
remarks recently made by myself at Pittsburg in regard to what is
supposed to be the especial interest of this great commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. I now wish only to say in regard to that matter, that
the few remarks which I uttered on that occasion were rather
carefully worded. I took pains that they should be so. I have seen
no occasion since to add to them or subtract from them. I leave them
precisely as they stand, adding only now that I am pleased to have an
expression from you, gentlemen of Pennsylvania, signifying that they
are satisfactory to you.
And now, gentlemen of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, allow me again to return to you my most sincere thanks.
REPLY TO THE MAYOR OF WASHINGTON, D.C.,
FEBRUARY 27, 1861
Mr. MAYOR:--I thank you, and through you the municipal authorities of
this city who accompany you, for this welcome. And as it is the
first time in my life, since the present phase of politics has
presented itself in this country, that I have said anything publicly
within a region of country where the institution of slavery exists, I
will take this occasion to say that I think very much of the ill
feeling that has existed and still exists between the people in the
section from which I came and the people here, is dependent upon a
misunderstanding of one another. I therefore avail myself of this
opportunity to assure you, Mr. Mayor, and all the gentlemen present,
that I have not now, and never have had, any other than as kindly
feelings toward you as to the people of my own section. I have not
now, and never have had, any disposition to treat you in any respect
otherwise than as my own neighbors. I have not now any purpose to
withhold from you any of the benefits of the Constitution, under any
circumstances, that I would not feel myself constrained to withhold
from my own neighbors; and I hope, in a word, that when we shall
become better acquainted--and I say it with great confidence--we
shall like each other better. I thank you for the kindness of this
reception.
REPLY TO A SERENADE AT WASHINGTON, D.C.,
FEBRUARY 28, 1861
MY FRIENDS:--I suppose that I may take this as a compliment paid to
me, and as such please accept my thanks for it. I have reached this
city of Washington under circumstances considerably differing from
those under which any other man has ever reached it. I am here for
the purpose of taking an official position amongst the people, almost
all of whom were politically opposed to me, and are yet opposed to
me, as I suppose.
I propose no lengthy address to you. I only propose to say, as I did
on yesterday, when your worthy mayor and board of aldermen called
upon me, that I thought much of the ill feeling that has existed
between you and the people of your surroundings and that people from
among whom I came, has depended, and now depends, upon a
misunderstanding.
I hope that, if things shall go along as prosperously as I believe we
all desire they may, I may have it in my power to remove something of
this misunderstanding; that I may be enabled to convince you, and the
people of your section of the country, that we regard you as in all
things our equals, and in all things entitled to the same respect and
the same treatment that we claim for ourselves; that we are in no
wise disposed, if it were in our power, to oppress you, to deprive
you of any of your rights under the Constitution of the United
States, or even narrowly to split hairs with you in regard to these
rights, but are determined to give you, as far as lies in our hands,
all your rights under the Constitution--not grudgingly, but fully and
fairly. I hope that, by thus dealing with you, we will become better
acquainted, and be better friends.
And now, my friends, with these few remarks, and again returning my
thanks for this compliment, and expressing my desire to hear a little
more of your good music, I bid you good-night.
WASHINGTON, SUNDAY, MARCH 3, 1861
[During the struggle over the appointments of LINCOLN's Cabinet, the
President-elect spoke as follows:]
Gentlemen, it is evident that some one must take the responsibility
of these appointments, and I will do it. My Cabinet is completed.
The positions are not definitely assigned, and will not be until I
announce them privately to the gentlemen whom I have selected as my
Constitutional advisers.
FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS,
MARCH 4, 1861
FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES:--In compliance with a custom as
old as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you
briefly, and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the
Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President
"before he enters on the execution of his office."
I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those
matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or
excitement.
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States
that by the accession of a Republican administration their property
and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There
has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed,
the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and
been open to their inspection. It is found in near1y all the
published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from
one of those speeches when I declare that
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the
institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I
have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I
had made this and many similar declarations, and had never recanted
them. And, more than this, they placed in the platform for my
acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and
emphatic resolution which I now read:
"Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the
States, and especially the right of each State to order and control
its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment
exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the
perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend, and we
denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State
or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as amongst the gravest of
crimes."
I now reiterate these sentiments; and, in doing so, I only press upon
the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case
is susceptible, that the property, peace, and security of no section
are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming administration.
I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the
Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to
all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause--as
cheerfully to one section as to another.
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from
service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the
Constitution as any other of its provisions:
"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws
thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or
regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but
shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or
labor may be due."
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those
who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and
the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress
swear their support to the whole Constitution--to this provision as
much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose
cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up,"
their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in
good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and
pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be
enforced by national or by State authority; but surely that
difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be
surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others
by which authority it is done. And should any one in any case be
content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial
controversy as to how it shall be kept?
Again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards of
liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced,
so that a free man be not, in any case, surrendered as a slave? And
might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the
enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that
"the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and
immunities of citizens in the several States"?
I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations, and with
no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical
rules. And, while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of
Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much
safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to
and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed, than to violate
any of them, trusting to find impunity in having them held to be
unconstitutional.
It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President
under our national Constitution. During that period fifteen
different and greatly distinguished citizens have, in succession,
administered the executive branch of the Government. They have
conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success.
Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task
for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and
peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore
only menaced, is now formidably attempted.
I hold that, in contemplation of universal law and of the
Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is
implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national
governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had
a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to
execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and
the Union will endure forever--it being impossible to destroy it
except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an
association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it as a
contract be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made
it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak;
but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition
that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the
history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the
Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association
in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of
Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all
the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it
should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And,
finally, in 1787 one of the declared objects for ordaining and
establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
But if the destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the
States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before
the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion
can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to
that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any
State or States, against the authority of the United States, are
insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
I therefore consider that, in view of the Constitution and the laws,
the Union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take
care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the
laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing
this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform
it so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American
people, shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative
manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a
menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will
constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there
shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The
power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the
property and places belonging to the Government, and to collect the
duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these
objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or
among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States, in
any interior locality, shall be so great and universal as to prevent
competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there
will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for
that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the
government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to
do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable withal,
that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such
offices.
The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all
parts of the Union. So far as possible, the people everywhere shall
have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm
thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed
unless current events and experience shall show a modification or
change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best
discretion will be exercised according to circumstances actually
existing, and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the
national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and
affections.
That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy
the Union at all events, and are glad of any pretext to do it, I will
neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word
to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not
speak?
Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our
national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes,
would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you
hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any
portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you,
while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones
you fly from--will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?
All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights
can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right, plainly written
in the Constitution, has been denied? I think not. Happily the human
mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of
doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a
plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied.
If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority
of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral
point of view, justify revolution--certainly would if such a right
were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of
minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by
affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the
Constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them. But no
organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically
applicable to every question which may occur in practical
administration. No foresight can anticipate, nor any document of
reasonable length contain, express provisions for all possible
questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or
by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May
Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does
not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories?
The Constitution does not expressly say.
>From questions of this class spring all our constitutional
controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and
minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must,
or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative; for
continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other.
If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they
make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them; for a
minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority
refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not
any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily
secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to
secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being
educated to the exact temper of doing this.
Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to
compose a new Union as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed
secession?
Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A
majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations,
and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular
opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people.
Whoever rejects it does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to
despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a
permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the
majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is
left.
I do not forget the position assumed by some, that constitutional
questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that
such decisions must be binding, in any case, upon the parties to a
suit, as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to
very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all
other departments of the government. And, while it is obviously
possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still
the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case,
with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent
for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a
different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must
confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions
affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions
of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary
litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have
ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically
resigned the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor
is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It
is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly
brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to
turn their decisions to political purposes.
One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be
extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be
extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive slave
clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the
foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law
can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people
imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people
abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over
in each. This, I think, cannot be perfectly cured; and it would be
worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before.
The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be
ultimately revived, without restriction, in one section, while
fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be
surrendered at all by the other.
Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our
respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall
between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the
presence and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts
of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face,
and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between
them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more
advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can
aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties
be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among
friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when,
after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you cease
fighting, the identical old questions as to terms of intercourse are
again upon you.
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who
inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing
government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending
it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I
cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic
citizens are desirous of having the national Constitution amended.
While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the
rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be
exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself,
and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose
a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will
venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in
that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves,
instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions
originated by others not especially chosen for the purpose, and which
might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or
refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution which
amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the
effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the
domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held
to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart
from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to
say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional
law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
The chief magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and
they have conferred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of
the States. The people themselves can do this also if they choose;
but the executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is
to administer the present government, as it came to his hands, and to
transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successors.
Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice
of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our
present differences is either party without faith of being in the
right? If the Almighty Ruler of nations, with his eternal truth and
justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that
truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this
great tribunal of the American people.
By the frame of the government under which we live, this same people
have wisely given their public servants but little power for
mischief; and have, with equal wisdom, provided for the return of
that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the
people retain their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any
extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the
government in the short space of four years.
My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole
subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be
an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would
never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking
time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are
now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on
the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the
new administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to
change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied
hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good
reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism,
Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken
this favored land, are still competent to adjust in the best way all
our present difficulty.
In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is
the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail
you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the
aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the
government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve,
protect, and defend" it.
I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not
be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break, our
bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from
every battle-field and patriot grave to every living heart and
hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of
the Union when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better
angels of our nature.
REFUSAL OF SEWARD RESIGNATION
TO WM. H. SEWARD.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 4, 1861.
MY DEAR SIR:--Your note of the 2d instant, asking to withdraw your
acceptance of my invitation to take charge of the State Department,
was duly received. It is the subject of the most painful solicitude
with me, and I feel constrained to beg that you will countermand the
withdrawal. The public interest, I think, demands that you should;
and my personal feelings are deeply enlisted in the same direction.
Please consider and answer by 9 A.M. to-morrow.
Your obedient servant,
A. LINCOLN.
REPLY TO THE PENNSYLVANIA DELEGATION,
WASHINGTON, MARCH 5, 1861
Mr. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN OF THE PENNSYLVANIAN DELEGATION:--As I
have so frequently said heretofore, when I have had occasion to
address the people of the Keystone, in my visits to that State, I can
now but repeat the assurance of my gratification at the support you
gave me at the election, and at the promise of a continuation of that
support which is now tendered to me.
Allusion has been made to the hope that you entertain that you have a
President and a government. In respect to that I wish to say to you
that in the position I have assumed I wish to do more than I have
ever given reason to believe I would do. I do not wish you to
believe that I assume to be any better than others who have gone
before me. I prefer rather to have it understood that if we ever
have a government on the principles we profess, we should remember,
while we exercise our opinion, that others have also rights to the
exercise of their opinions, and that we should endeavor to allow
these rights, and act in such a manner as to create no bad feeling.
I hope we have a government and a President. I hope, and wish it to
be understood, that there may he no allusion to unpleasant
differences.
We must remember that the people of all the States are entitled to
all the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several
States. We should bear this in mind, and act in such a way as to say
nothing insulting or irritating. I would inculcate this idea, so
that we may not, like Pharisees, set ourselves up to be better than
other people.
Now, my friends, my public duties are pressing to-day, and will
prevent my giving more time to you. Indeed, I should not have left
them now, but I could not well deny myself to so large and
respectable a body.
REPLY TO THE MASSACHUSETTS DELEGATION,
WASHINGTON, MARCH 5, 1861
I am thankful for this renewed assurance of kind feeling and
confidence, and the support of the old Bay State, in so far as you,
Mr. Chairman, have expressed, in behalf of those whom you represent,
your sanction of what I have enunciated in my inaugural address.
This is very grateful to my feelings. The object was one of great
delicacy, in presenting views at the opening of an administration
under the peculiar circumstances attending my entrance upon the
official duties connected with the Government. I studied all the
points with great anxiety, and presented them with whatever of
ability and sense of justice I could bring to bear. If it met the
approbation of our good friends in Massachusetts, I shall be
exceedingly gratified, while I hope it will meet the approbation of
friends everywhere. I am thankful for the expressions of those who
have voted with us; and like every other man of you, I like them as
certainly as I do others. As the President in the administration of
the Government, I hope to be man enough not to know one citizen of
the United States from another, nor one section from another. I
shall be gratified to have good friends of Massachusetts and others
who have thus far supported me in these national views still to
support me in carrying them out.
TO SECRETARY SEWARD
EXECUTIVE CHAMBER, MARCH 7, 1861
MY DEAR SIR:--Herewith is the diplomatic address and my reply. To
whom the reply should be addressed--that is, by what title or style--
I do not quite understand, and therefore I have left it blank.
Will you please bring with you to-day the message from the War
Department, with General Scott's note upon it, which we had here
yesterday? I wish to examine the General's opinion, which I have not
yet done.
Yours very truly
A. LINCOLN.
REPLY TO THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS
WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1861
Mr. FIGANIERE AND GENTLEMEN OF THE DIPLOMATIC BODY:--Please accept my
sincere thanks for your kind congratulations. It affords me pleasure
to confirm the confidence you so generously express in the friendly
disposition of the United States, through me, towards the sovereigns
and governments you respectively represent. With equal satisfaction
I accept the assurance you are pleased to give, that the same
disposition is reciprocated by your sovereigns, your governments, and
yourselves.
Allow me to express the hope that these friendly relations may remain
undisturbed, arid also my fervent wishes for the health and happiness
of yourselves personally.
TO SECRETARY SEWARD
EXECUTIVE MANSION, MARCH 11,1861
HON. SECRETARY OF STATE.
DEAR SIR:--What think you of sending ministers at once as follows:
Dayton to England; Fremont to France; Clay to Spain; Corwin to
Mexico?
We need to have these points guarded as strongly and quickly as
possible. This is suggestion merely, and not dictation.
Your obedient servant,
A. LINCOLN.
TO J. COLLAMER
EXECUTIVE MANSION, MARCH 12, 1861
HON. JACOB COLLAMER.
MY DEAR SIR:--God help me. It is said I have offended you. I hope
you will tell me how.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
March 14, 1861.
DEAR SIR:--I am entirely unconscious that you have any way offended
me. I cherish no sentiment towards you but that of kindness and
confidence.
Your humble servant,
J. COLLAMER
[Returned with indorsement:]
Very glad to know that I have n't.
A. LINCOLN.
TO THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, MARCH 13, 1861
HON. P. M. G.
DEAR SIR:--The bearer of this, Mr. C. T. Hempstow, is a Virginian who
wishes to get, for his son, a small place in your Dept. I think
Virginia should be heard, in such cases.
LINCOLN.
NOTE ASKING CABINET OPINIONS ON FORT SUMTER.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, MARCH 15, 1861
THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF WAR.
MY DEAR SIR:--Assuming it to be possible to now provision Fort
Sumter, under all the circumstances is it wise to attempt it? Please
give me your opinion in writing on this question.
Your obedient servant,
A. LINCOLN.
[Same to other members of the Cabinet.]
ON ROYAL ARBITRATION OF AMERICAN BOUNDARY LINE
TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
The Senate has transmitted to me a copy of the message sent by my
predecessor to that body on the 21st of February last, proposing to
take its advice on the subject of a proposition made by the British
Government through its minister here to refer the matter in
controversy between that government and the Government of the United
States to the arbitrament of the King of Sweden and Norway, the King
of the Netherlands, or the Republic of the Swiss Confederation.
In that message my predecessor stated that he wished to present to
the Senate the precise questions following, namely:
"Will the Senate approve a treaty referring to either of the
sovereign powers above named the dispute now existing between the
governments of the United States and Great Britain concerning the
boundary line between Vancouver's Island and the American continent?
In case the referee shall find himself unable to decide where the
line is by the description of it in the treaty of June 15, 1846,
shall he be authorized to establish a line according to the treaty as
nearly as possible? Which of the three powers named by Great Britain
as an arbiter shall be chosen by the United States?"
I find no reason to disapprove of the course of my predecessor in
this important matter; but, on the contrary, I not only shall receive
the advice of the Senate thereon cheerfully, but I respectfully ask
the Senate for their advice on the three questions before recited
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
WASHINGTON, March 16, 1861
AMBASSADORIAL APPOINTMENTS
TO SECRETARY SEWARD.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, MARCH 18, 1861
HON. SECRETARY OF STATE.
MY DEAR SIR:--I believe it is a necessity with us to make the
appointments I mentioned last night--that is, Charles F. Adams to
England, William L. Dayton to France, George P. Marsh to Sardinia,
and Anson Burlingame to Austria. These gentlemen all have my highest
esteem, but no one of them is originally suggested by me except Mr.
Dayton. Mr. Adams I take because you suggested him, coupled with his
eminent fitness for the place. Mr. Marsh and Mr. Burlingame I take
because of the intense pressure of their respective States, and their
fitness also.
The objection to this card is that locally they are so huddled up--
three being in New England and two from a single State. I have
considered this, and will not shrink from the responsibility. This,
being done, leaves but five full missions undisposed of--Rome, China,
Brazil, Peru, and Chili. And then what about Carl Schurz; or, in
other words, what about our German friends?
Shall we put the card through, and arrange the rest afterward? What
say you?
Your obedient servant,
A. LINCOLN.
TO G. E. PATTEN.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 19, 1861.
TO MASTER GEO. EVANS PATTEN.
WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:--I did see and talk with Master Geo. Evans
Patten last May at Springfield, Ill.
Respectfully,
A. LINCOLN.
[Written because of a denial that any interview with young Patten,
then a schoolboy, had ever taken place.]
RESPONSE TO SENATE INQUIRY RE. FORT SUMTER
MESSAGE TO THE SENATE.
TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:--I have received a copy of the
resolution of the Senate, passed on the 25th instant, requesting me,
if in my opinion not incompatible with the public interest, to
communicate to the Senate the despatches of Major Robert Anderson to
the War Department during the time he has been in command of Fort
Sumter. On examination of the correspondence thus called for, I
have, with the highest respect for the Senate, come to the conclusion
that at the present moment the publication of it would be
inexpedient.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
WASHINGTON, MARCH 16, 1861
PREPARATION OF FIRST NAVAL ACTION
TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR
EXECUTIVE MANSION, MARCH 29, 1861
HONORABLE SECRETARY OF WAR.
SIR:--I desire that an expedition to move by sea be got ready to sail
as early as the 6th of April next, the whole according to memorandum
attached, and that you cooperate with the Secretary of the Navy for
that object.
Your obedient servant,
A. LINCOLN.
[Inclosure.]
Steamers Pocahontas at Norfolk, Paunee at Washington, Harriet Lane at
New York, to be under sailing orders for sea, with stores, etc., for
one month. Three hundred men to be kept ready for departure from on
board the receiving-ships at New York. Two hundred men to be ready to
leave Governor's Island in New York. Supplies for twelve months for
one hundred men to be put in portable shape, ready for instant
shipping. A large steamer and three tugs conditionally engaged.
TO ______ STUART.
WASHINGTON, March 30, 1861
DEAR STUART:
Cousin Lizzie shows me your letter of the 27th. The question of
giving her the Springfield post-office troubles me. You see I have
already appointed William Jayne a Territorial governor and Judge
Trumbull's brother to a land-office. Will it do for me to go on and
justify the declaration that Trumbull and I have divided out all the
offices among our relatives? Dr. Wallace, you know, is needy, and
looks to me; and I personally owe him much.
I see by the papers, a vote is to be taken as to the post-office.
Could you not set up Lizzie and beat them all? She, being here, need
know nothing of it, so therefore there would be no indelicacy on her
part. Yours as ever,
TO THE COMMANDANT OF THE NEW YORK NAVY-YARD.
NAVY DEPT., WASHINGTON, April 1, 1861
TO THE COMMANDANT OF THE NAVY-YARD,
Brooklyn, N. Y.
Fit out the Powhatan to go to sea at the earnest possible moment
under sealed orders. Orders by a confidential messenger go forward
to-morrow.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
TO LIEUTENANT D. D. PORTER
EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 1, 1861
LIEUTENANT D. D. PORTER, United States Navy.
SIR:--You will proceed to New York, and with the least possible
delay, assuming command of any naval steamer available, proceed to
Pensacola Harbor, and at any cost or risk prevent any expedition from
the mainland reaching Fort Pickens or Santa Rosa Island.
You will exhibit this order to any naval officer at Pensacola, if you
deem it necessary, after you have established yourself within the
harbor, and will request co-operation by the entrance of at least one
other steamer.
This order, its object, and your destination will be communicated to
no person whatever until you reach the harbor of Pensacola.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
Recommended, WILLIAM H. SEWARD.
RELIEF EXPEDITION FOR FORT SUMTER
ORDER TO OFFICERS OF THE ARMY AND NAVY.
WASHINGTON, EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 1, 1861.
All officers of the army and navy to whom this order may be exhibited
will aid by every means in their power the expedition under the
command of Colonel Harvey Brown, supplying him with men and material,
and co-operating with him as he may desire.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
ORDER TO CAPTAIN SAMUEL MERCER.
(Confidential.)
WASHINGTON CITY,
April 1, 1861
SIR:--Circumstances render it necessary to place in command of your
ship (and for a special purpose) an officer who is fully informed and
instructed in relation to the wishes of the Government, and you will
therefore consider yourself detached. But in taking this step the
Government does not in the least reflect upon your efficiency or
patriotism; on the contrary, have the fullest confidence in your
ability to perform any duty required of you. Hoping soon to be able
to give you a better command than the one you now enjoy, and trusting
that you will have full confidence in the disposition of the
Government toward you,
I remain, etc.,
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
SECRETARY SEWARD'S BID FOR POWER
MEMORANDUM FROM SECRETARY SEWARD,
APRIL 1, 1861
Some thoughts for the President's Consideration,
First. We are at the end of a month's administration, and yet
without a policy either domestic or foreign.
Second. This, however, is not culpable, and it has even been
unavoidable. The presence of the Senate, with the need to meet
applications for patronage, have prevented attention to other and
more grave matters.
Third. But further delay to adopt and prosecute our policies for
both domestic and foreign affairs would not only bring scandal on the
administration, but danger upon the country.
Fourth. To do this we must dismiss the applicants for office. But
how? I suggest that we make the local appointments forthwith, leaving
foreign or general ones for ulterior and occasional action.
Fifth. The policy at home. I am aware that my views are singular,
and perhaps not sufficiently explained. My system is built upon this
idea as a ruling one, namely, that we must
CHANGE THE QUESTION BEFORE THE PUBLIC FROM ONE UPON SLAVERY, OR ABOUT
SLAVERY, for a question upon UNION OR DISUNION:
In other words, from what would be regarded as a party question, to
one of patriotism or union.
The occupation or evacuation of Fort Sumter, although not in fact a
slavery or a party question, is so regarded. Witness the temper
manifested by the Republicans in the free States, and even by the
Union men in the South.
I would therefore terminate it as a safe means for changing the
issue. I deem it fortunate that the last administration created the
necessity.
For the rest, I would simultaneously defend and reinforce all the
ports in the gulf, and have the navy recalled from foreign stations
to be prepared for a blockade. Put the island of Key West under
martial law.
This will raise distinctly the question of union or disunion. I
would maintain every fort and possession in the South.
FOR FOREIGN NATIONS,
I would demand explanations from Spain and France, categorically, at
once.
I would seek explanations from Great Britain and Russia, and send
agents into Canada, Mexico, and Central America to rouse a vigorous
continental spirit of independence on this continent against European
intervention.
And, if satisfactory explanations are not received from Spain and
France,
Would convene Congress and declare war against them.
But whatever policy we adopt, there must be an energetic prosecution
of it.
For this purpose it must be somebody's business to pursue and direct
it incessantly.
Either the President must do it himself, and be all the while active
in it, or Devolve it on some member of his Cabinet. Once adopted,
debates on it must end, and all agree and abide.
It is not in my especial province; But I neither seek to evade nor
assume responsibility.
REPLY TO SECRETARY SEWARD'S MEMORANDUM
EXECUTIVE MANSION, APRIL 1, 1861
HON. W. H. SEWARD.
MY DEAR SIR:--Since parting with you I have been considering your
paper dated this day, and entitled "Some Thoughts for the President's
Consideration." The first proposition in it is, "First, We are at
the end of a month's administration, and yet without a policy either
domestic or foreign."
At the beginning of that month, in the inaugural, I said: "The power
confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property
and places belonging to the Government, and to Collect the duties and
imposts." This had your distinct approval at the time; and, taken in
connection with the order I immediately gave General Scott, directing
him to employ every means in his power to strengthen and hold the
forts, comprises the exact domestic policy you now urge, with the
single exception that it does not propose to abandon Fort Sumter.
Again, I do not perceive how the reinforcement of Fort Sumter would
be done on a slavery or a party issue, while that of Fort Pickens
would be on a more national and patriotic one.
The news received yesterday in regard to St. Domingo certainly brings
a new item within the range of our foreign policy; but up to that
time we have been preparing circulars and instructions to ministers
and the like, all in perfect harmony, without even a suggestion that
we had no foreign policy.
Upon your Closing propositions--that,
"Whatever policy we adopt, there must be an energetic prosecution of
it.
"For this purpose it must be somebody's business to pursue and direct
it incessantly.
"Either the President must do it himself, and be all the while active
in it, or,
"Devolve it on some member of his Cabinet. Once adopted, debates on
it must end, and all agree and abide"--
I remark that if this must be done, I must do it. When a general
line of policy is adopted, I apprehend there is no danger of its
being changed without good reason, or continuing to be a subject of
unnecessary debate; still, upon points arising in its progress I
wish, and suppose I am entitled to have, the advice of all the
Cabinet.
Your obedient servant,
A. LINCOLN.
REPLY TO A COMMITTEE FROM THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION, APRIL 13, 1861
HON. WILLIAM BALLARD PRESTON, ALEXANDER H.
H. STUART, GEORGE W. RANDOLPH, Esq.
GENTLEMEN:--As a committee of the Virginia Convention now in Session,
you present me a preamble and resolution in these words:
"Whereas, in the opinion of this Convention, the uncertainty which
prevails in the public mind as to the policy which the Federal
Executive intends to pursue toward the seceded States is extremely
injurious to the industrial and commercial interests of the country,
tends to keep up an excitement which is unfavorable to the adjustment
of pending difficulties, and threatens a disturbance of the public
peace: therefore
Resolved, that a committee of three delegates be appointed by this
Convention to wait upon the President of the United States, present
to him this preamble and resolution, and respectfully ask him to
communicate to this Convention the policy which the Federal Executive
intends to pursue in regard to the Confederate States.
"Adopted by the Convention of the State of Virginia, Richmond, April
8, 1861."
In answer I have to say that, having at the beginning of my official
term expressed my intended policy as plainly as I was able, it is
with deep regret and some mortification I now learn that there is
great and injurious uncertainty in the public mind as to what that
policy is, and what course I intend to pursue. Not having as yet
seen occasion to change, it is now my purpose to pursue the course
marked out in the inaugural address. I commend a careful
consideration of the whole document as the best expression I can give
of my purposes.
As I then and therein said, I now repeat: "The power confided to me
will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places
belonging to the Government, and to collect the duties and imposts;
but beyond what is necessary for these objects, there will be no
invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere." By
the words "property and places belonging to the Government," I
chiefly allude to the military posts and property which were in the
possession of the Government when it came to my hands.
But if, as now appears to be true, in pursuit of a purpose to drive
the United States authority from these places, an unprovoked assault
has been made upon Fort Sumter, I shall hold myself at liberty to
repossess, if I can, like places which had been seized before the
Government was devolved upon me. And in every event I shall, to the
extent of my ability, repel force by force. In case it proves true
that Fort Sumter has been assaulted, as is reported, I shall perhaps
cause the United States mails to be withdrawn from all the States
which claim to have seceded, believing that the commencement of
actual war against the Government justifies and possibly demands
this.
I scarcely need to say that I consider the military posts and
property situated within the States which claim to have seceded as
yet belonging to the Government of the United States as much as they
did before the supposed secession.
Whatever else I may do for the purpose, I shall not attempt to
collect the duties and imposts by any armed invasion of any part of
the country; not meaning by this, however, that I may not land a
force deemed necessary to relieve a fort upon a border of the
country.
>From the fact that I have quoted a part of the inaugural address, it
must not be inferred that I repudiate any other part, the whole of
which I reaffirm, except so far as what I now say of the mails may be
regarded as a modification.
PROCLAMATION CALLING FOR 75,000 MILITIA, AND CONVENING CONGRESS IN
EXTRA SESSION, APRIL 15, 1861.
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA:
A Proclamation.
Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past
and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the
States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi,
Louisiana, and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed
by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers
vested in the marshals bylaw:
Now, therefore, I, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States,
in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws,
have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia
of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of
seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to
cause the laws to be duly executed.
The details for this object will be immediately communicated to the
State authorities through the War Department.
I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this
effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our
National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government; and to
redress wrongs already long enough endured.
I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forces
hereby called forth will probably be to repossess the forts, places,
and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every
event the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects
aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of or
interference with property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens
in any part of the country.
And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid
to disperse and retire peacefully to their respective abodes within
twenty days from date.
Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an
extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me
vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress.
Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at
their respective chambers, at twelve o'clock noon, on Thursday, the
fourth day of July next, then and there to consider and determine
such measures as, in their wisdom, the public safety and interest may
seem to demand.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal
of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the city of Washington, this fifteenth day of April, in the
year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of the
independence of the United States the eighty-fifth.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
Secretary of State.
PROCLAMATION OF BLOCKADE, APRIL 19, 1861
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA:
A Proclamation.
Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States
has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama,
Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the
United States for the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually
executed therein conformably to that provision of the Constitution
which requires duties to be uniform throughout the United States:
And Whereas a combination of persons engaged in such insurrection
have threatened to grant pretended letters of marque to authorize the
bearers thereof to commit assaults on the lives, vessels, and
property of good citizens of the country lawfully engaged in commerce
on the high seas, and in waters of the United States:
And Whereas an executive proclamation has been already issued
requiring the persons engaged in these disorderly proceedings to
desist therefrom, calling out a militia force for the purpose of
repressing the same, and convening Congress in extraordinary session
to deliberate and determine thereon:
Now, therefore, I, Abraham LINCOLN, President of the United States,
with a view to the same purposes before mentioned, and to the
protection of the public peace, and the lives and property of quiet
and orderly citizens pursuing their lawful occupations, until
Congress shall have assembled and deliberated on the said unlawful
proceedings, or until the same shall have ceased, have further deemed
it advisable to set on foot a blockade of the ports within the States
aforesaid, in pursuance of the laws of the United States, and of the
law of nations in such case provided. For this purpose a competent
force will be posted so as to prevent entrance and exit of vessels
from the ports aforesaid. If, therefore, with a view to violate such
blockade, a vessel shall approach or shall attempt to leave either of
the said ports, she will be duly warned by the commander of one of
the blockading vessels, who will indorse on her register the fact and
date of such warning, and if the same vessel shall again attempt to
enter or leave the blockaded port, she will be captured and sent to
the nearest convenient port, for such proceedings against her and her
cargo, as prize, as may be deemed advisable.
And I hereby proclaim and declare that if any person, under the
pretended authority of the said States, or under any other pretense,
shall molest a vessel of the United States, or the persons or cargo
on board of her, such person will be held amenable to the laws of the
United States for the prevention and punishment of piracy.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal
of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the city of Washington, this nineteenth day of April, in the
year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of the
independence of the United States the eighty-fifth.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
Secretary of State.
TO GOVERNOR HICKS AND MAYOR BROWN.
WASHINGTON, April 20, 1861
GOVERNOR HICKS AND MAYOR BROWN.
GENTLEMEN:--Your letter by Messrs. Bond, Dobbin, and Brune is
received. I tender you both my sincere thanks for your efforts to
keep the peace in the trying situation in which you are placed.
For the future troops must be brought here, but I make no point of
bringing them through Baltimore. Without any military knowledge
myself, of course I must leave details to General Scott. He hastily
said this morning in the presence of these gentlemen, "March them
around Baltimore, and not through it." I sincerely hope the General,
on fuller reflection, will consider this practical and proper, and
that you will not object to it. By this a collision of the people of
Baltimore with the troops will be avoided, unless they go out of
their way to seek it. I hope you will exert your influence to
prevent this.
Now and ever I shall do all in my power for peace consistently with
the maintenance of the Government.
Your obedient servant,
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
TO GOVERNOR HICKS.
WASHINGTON, April 20, 1861
GOVERNOR HICKS:
I desire to consult with you and the Mayor of Baltimore relative to
preserving the peace of Maryland. Please come immediately by special
train, which you can take at Baltimore; or, if necessary, one can be
sent from here. Answer forthwith.
LINCOLN.
ORDER TO DEFEND FROM A MARYLAND INSURRECTION
ORDER TO GENERAL SCOTT.
WASHINGTON, April 25, 1861
LIEUTENANT-GENERAL SCOTT.
MY DEAR SIR -The Maryland Legislature assembles to-morrow at
Annapolis, and not improbably will take action to arm the people of
that State against the United States. The question has been
submitted to and considered by me whether it would not be
justifiable, upon the ground of necessary defense, for you, as
General in Chief of the United States Army, to arrest or disperse the
members of that body. I think it would not be justifiable nor
efficient for the desired object.
First. They have a clearly legal right to assemble, and we cannot
know in advance that their action will not be lawful and peaceful,
and if we wait until they shall have acted their arrest or dispersion
will not lessen the effect of their action.
Secondly. We cannot permanently prevent their action. If we arrest
them, we cannot long hold them as prisoners, and when liberated they
will immediately reassemble and take their action; and precisely the
same if we simply disperse them--they will immediately reassemble in
some other place.
I therefore conclude that it is only left to the Commanding General
to watch and await their action, which, if it shall be to arm their
people against the United States, he is to adopt the most prompt and
efficient means to counteract, even, if necessary, to the bombardment
of their cities and, in the extremist necessity, the suspension of
the writ of habeas corpus.
Your obedient servant, ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
PROCLAMATION OF BLOCKADE, APRIL 27, 1861
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A Proclamation.
Whereas, for the reasons assigned in my proclamation of the
nineteenth instant, a blockade of the ports of the States of South
Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Texas was ordered to be established:
And whereas, since that date, public property of the United States
has been seized, the collection of the revenue obstructed, and duly
commissioned officers of the United States, while engaged in
executing the orders of their superiors, have been arrested and held
in custody as prisoners, or have been impeded in the discharge of
their official duties, without due legal process, by persons claiming
to act under authorities of the States of Virginia and North
Carolina:
An efficient blockade of the ports of those States will also be
established
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.
Done at the city of Washington, this twenty seventh day of April, in
the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of
the independence of the United States the eighty-fifth.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
REMARKS TO A MILITARY COMPANY, WASHINGTON,
APRIL 27, 1861
I have desired as sincerely as any man, and I sometimes think more
than any other man, that our present difficulties might be settled
without the shedding of blood. I will not say that all hope has yet
gone; but if the alternative is presented whether the Union is to be
broken in fragments and the liberties of the people lost, or blood be
shed, you will probably make the choice with which I shall not be
dissatisfied.
LOCALIZED REPEAL OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
TO GENERAL SCOTT.
TO THE COMMANDING GENERAL,
ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES.
You are engaged in suppressing an insurrection against the laws of
the United States. If at any point on or in the vicinity of any
military line which is now or which shall be used between the City of
Philadelphia and the city of Washington you find resistance which
renders it necessary to suspend the writ of habeas corpus for the
public safety, you personally, or through the officer in command at
the point at which resistance occurs, are authorized to suspend that
writ.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
WASHINGTON, April 17, 1861
MILITARY ENROLLMENT OF ST. LOUIS CITIZENS
FROM THE SECRETARY OF WAR
WAR DEPARTMENT, April 30, 1861
TO CAPTAIN NATHANIEL LYON.
CAPT. NATHANIEL LYON,
Commanding Department of the West.
SIR:--The President of the United States directs that you enroll in
the military service of the United States the loyal citizens of Saint
Louis and vicinity, not exceeding, with those heretofore enlisted,
ten thousand in number, for the purpose of maintaining the authority
of the United States; for the protection of the peaceful inhabitants
of Missouri; and you will, if deemed necessary for that purpose by
yourself, by Messrs. Oliver F. Ferny, John How, James O. Broadhead,
Samuel T. Glover, J. Wilzie, Francis P. Blair, Jr., proclaim martial
law in the city of Saint Louis.
The additional force hereby authorized shall be discharged in part or
in whole, if enlisted. As soon as it appears to you and the
gentlemen above mentioned that there is no danger of an attempt on
the part of the enemies of the Government to take military possession
of the city of Saint Louis, or put the city in control of the
combination against the Government of the United States; and whilst
such additional force remains in the service the same shall be
governed by the Rules and Articles of War, and such special
regulations as you may prescribe. I shall like the force hereafter
directed to be enrolled to be under your command.
The arms and other military stores in the Saint Louis Arsenal not
needed for the forces of the United States in Missouri must be
removed to Springfield, or some other safe place of deposit in the
State of Illinois, as speedily as practicable, by the ordnance
officers in charge at Saint Louis.
(Indorsement.)
It is revolutionary times, and therefore I do not object to the
irregularity of this. W. S.
Approved, April 30, 1861. A. LINCOLN.
Colonel Thomas will make this order.
SIMON CAMERON, Secretary of War.
CONDOLENCE OVER FAILURE OF FT. SUMTER RELIEF
TO GUSTAVUS V. FOX.
WASHINGTON, D.C., May 1, 1861
CAPTAIN G. V. Fox.
MY DEAR SIR:--I sincerely regret that the failure of the late attempt
to provision Fort Sumter should be the source of any annoyance to
you.
The practicability of your plan was not, in fact, brought to a test.
By reason of a gale, well known in advance to be possible and not
improbable, the tugs, an essential part of the plan, never reached
the ground; while, by an accident for which you were in no wise
responsible, and possibly I to some extent was, you were deprived of
a war vessel, with her men, which you deemed of great importance to
the enterprise.
I most cheerfully and truly declare that the failure of the
undertaking has not lowered you a particle, while the qualities you
developed in the effort have greatly heightened you in my estimation.
For a daring and dangerous enterprise of a similar character you
would to-day be the man of all my acquaintances whom I would select.
You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be
advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it
should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our
anticipation is justified by the result.
Very truly your friend,
A. LINCOLN.
PROCLAMATION CALLING FOR 42,034 VOLUNTEERS,
MAY 3, 1861
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
A Proclamation..
Whereas existing exigencies demand immediate and adequate measures
for the protection of the National Constitution and the preservation
of the National Union by the suppression of the insurrectionary
combinations now existing in several States for opposing the laws of
the Union and obstructing the execution thereof, to which end a
military force in addition to that called forth by my proclamation of
the 15th day of April in the present year appears to be indispensably
necessary:
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States
and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy thereof and of the
militia of the several States when called into actual service, do
hereby call into the service of the United States 42,034 volunteers
to serve for the period of three years, unless sooner discharged, and
to be mustered into service as infantry and cavalry. The proportions
of each arm and the details of enrollment and organization will be
made known through the Department of War.
And I also direct that the Regular Army of the United States be
increased by the addition of eight regiments of infantry, one
regiment of cavalry, and one regiment of artillery, making altogether
a maximum aggregate increase of 22,714 officers and enlisted men, the
details of which increase will also be made known through the
Department of War.
And I further direct the enlistment for not less than one or more
than three years of 18,000 seamen, in addition to the present force,
for the naval service of the United States. The details of the
enlistment and organization will be made known through the Department
of the Navy.
The call for volunteers hereby made and the direction for the
increase of the Regular Army and for the enlistment of seamen hereby
given, together with the plan of organization adopted for the
volunteer and for the regular forces hereby authorized, will be
submitted to Congress as soon as assembled.
In the meantime I earnestly invoke the co-operation of all good
citizens in the measures hereby adopted for the effectual suppression
of unlawful violence, for the impartial enforcement of constitutional
laws, and for the speediest possible restoration of peace and order,
and with these of happiness and prosperity, throughout our country.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my band and caused the seal
of the United States to be affixed................
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.
COMMUNICATION WITH VICE-PRESIDENT
TO VICE-PRESIDENT HAMLIN.
WASHINGTON, D.C., May 6, 1861
HON. H. HAMLIN, New York.
MY DEAR SIR:-Please advise me at the close of each day what troops
left during the day, where going, and by what route; what remaining
at New York, and what expected in the next day. Give the numbers, as
near as convenient, and what corps they are. This information,
reaching us daily, will be very useful as well as satisfactory.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
ORDER TO COLONEL ANDERSON,
MAY 7, 1861
TO ALL WHO SHALL SEE THESE PRESENTS, GREETING:
Know ye that, reposing special trust and confidence in the
patriotism, valor, fidelity, and ability of Colonel Robert Anderson,
U. S. Army, I have empowered him, and do hereby empower him, to
receive into the army of the United States as many regiments of
volunteer troops from the State of Kentucky and from the western part
of the State of Virginia as shall be willing to engage in the Service
of the United States for the term of three years, upon the terms and
according to the plan proposed by the proclamation of May 3, 1861,
and General Orders No. 15, from the War Department, of May 4, 1861.
The troops whom he receives shall be on the same footing in every
respect as those of the like kind called for in the proclamation
above cited, except that the officers shall be commissioned by the
United States. He is therefore carefully and diligently to discharge
the duty hereby devolved upon him by doing and performing all manner
of things thereunto belonging.
Given under my hand, at the city of Washington, this 7th day of May,
A. D. 1861, and in the eighty-fifth year of the independence of the
United States.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
By the President:
SIMON CAMERON, Secretary of War,
PROCLAMATION SUSPENDING THE WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS IN FLORIDA, MAY 10, 1861.
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OP AMERICA:
A Proclamation.
Whereas an insurrection exists in the State of Florida, by which the
lives, liberty, and property of loyal citizens of the United States
are endangered:
And whereas it is deemed proper that all needful measures should be
taken for the protection of such citizens and all officers of the
United States in the discharge of their public duties in the State
aforesaid:
Now, therefore, be it known that I, Abraham LINCOLN, President of the
United States, do hereby direct the commander of the forces of the
United States on the Florida coast to permit no person to exercise
any office or authority upon the islands of Key West, the Tortugas,
and Santa Rosa, which may be inconsistent with the laws and
Constitution of the United States, authorizing him at the same time,
if he shall find it necessary, to suspend there the writ of habeas
corpus, and to remove from the vicinity of the United States
fortresses all dangerous or suspected persons.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal
of the United States to be affixed.....................
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.
TO SECRETARY WELLES.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 11, 1861
TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.
SIR:-Lieut. D. D. Porter was placed in command of the steamer
Powhatan, and Captain Samuel Mercer was detached therefrom, by my
special order, and neither of them is responsible for any apparent or
real irregularity on their part or in connection with that vessel.
Hereafter Captain Porter is relieved from that special service and
placed under the direction of the Navy Department, from which he will
receive instructions and to which he will report.
Very respectfully,
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S CORRECTIONS OF A DIPLOMATIC DESPATCH WRITTEN BY
THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO MINISTER ADAMS
NO. 10.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
WASHINGTON, May 21, 1861
SIR:---Mr. Dallas, in a brief despatch of May 2d (No. 333), tells us
that Lord John Russell recently requested an interview with him on
account of the solicitude which his lordship felt concerning the
effect of certain measures represented as likely to be adopted by the
President. In that conversation the British secretary told Mr.
Dallas that the three representatives of the Southern Confederacy
were then in London, that Lord John Russell had not yet seen them,
but that he was not unwilling to see them unofficially. He further
informed Mr. Dallas that an understanding exists between the British
and French governments which would lead both to take one and the same
course as to recognition. His lordship then referred to the rumor of
a meditated blockade by us of Southern ports, and a discontinuance of
them as ports of entry. Mr. Dallas answered that he knew nothing on
those topics, and therefore
(The President's corrections, both in notes and text, are in
caps. All matter between brackets was to be marked out.)
could say nothing. He added that you were expected to arrive in two
weeks. Upon this statement Lord John Russell acquiesced in the
expediency of waiting for the full knowledge you were expected to
bring.
Mr. Dallas transmitted to us some newspaper reports of ministerial
explanations made in Parliament.
You will base no proceedings on parliamentary debates further than to
seek explanations when necessary and communicate them to this
department. [We intend to have a clear and simple record of whatever
issue may arise between us and Great Britain.]
The President [is surprised and grieved] regrets that Mr. Dallas did
not protest against the proposed unofficial intercourse between the
British Government and the missionaries of the insurgents [as well as
against the demand for explanations made by the British Government].
It is due, however, to Mr. Dallas to say that our instructions had
been given only to you and not to him, and that his loyalty and
fidelity, too rare in these times [among our late representatives
abroad, are confessed and] are appreciated.
Intercourse of any kind with the so-called commissioners is liable to
be construed as a recognition of the authority which appointed them.
Such intercourse would be none the less [wrongful] hurtful to us for
being called unofficial, and it might be even more injurious, because
we should have no means of knowing what points might be resolved by
it. Moreover, unofficial intercourse is useless and meaningless if
it is not expected to ripen into official intercourse and direct
recognition. It is left doubtful here whether the proposed
unofficial intercourse has yet actually begun. Your own [present]
antecedent instructions are deemed explicit enough, and it is hoped
that you have not misunderstood them. You will in any event desist
from all intercourse whatever, unofficial as well as official, with
the British Government, so long as it shall continue intercourse of
either kind with the domestic enemies of this country [confining
yourself to a delivery of a copy of this paper to the Secretary of
State. After doing this.] When intercourse shall have been arrested
for this cause, you will communicate with this department and receive
further directions.
Lord John Russell has informed us of an understanding between the
British and French governments that they will act together in regard
to our affairs. This communication, however, loses something of its
value from the circumstance that the communication was withheld until
after knowledge of the fact had been acquired by us from other
sources. We know also another fact that has not yet been officially
communicated to us--namely, that other European States are apprised
by France and England of their agreement, and are expected to concur
with or follow them in whatever measures they adopt on the subject of
recognition. The United States have been impartial and just in all
their conduct toward the several nations of Europe. They will not
complain, however, of the combination now announced by the two
leading powers, although they think they had a right to expect a more
independent, if not a more friendly, course from each of them. You
will take no notice of that or any other alliance. Whenever the
European governments shall see fit to communicate directly with us,
we shall be, as heretofore, frank and explicit in our reply.
As to the blockade, you will say that by [the] our own laws [of
nature] and the laws of nature and the laws of nations, this
Government has a clear right to suppress insurrection. An exclusion
of commerce from national ports which have been seized by the
insurgents, in the equitable form of blockade, is the proper means to
that end. You will [admit] not insist that our blockade is [not] to
be respected if it be not maintained by a competent force; but
passing by that question as not now a practical, or at least an
urgent, one, you will add that [it] the blockade is now, and it will
continue to be so maintained, and therefore we expect it to be
respected by Great Britain. You will add that we have already
revoked the exequatur of a Russian consul who had enlisted in the
military service of the insurgents, and we shall dismiss or demand
the recall of every foreign agent, consular or diplomatic, who shall
either disobey the Federal laws or disown the Federal authority.
As to the recognition of the so-called Southern Confederacy, it is
not to be made a subject of technical definition. It is, of course,
[quasi direct recognition to publish an acknowledgment of the
sovereignty and independence of a new power. It is [quasi] direct
recognition to receive its ambassadors, ministers, agents, or
commissioners officially. A concession of belligerent rights is
liable to be construed as a recognition of them. No one of these
proceedings will [be borne] pass [unnoticed] unquestioned by the
United States in this case.
Hitherto recognition has been moved only on the assumption that the
so-called Confederate States are de facto a self-sustaining power.
Now, after long forbearance, designed to soothe discontent and avert
the need of civil war, the land and naval forces of the United States
have been put in motion to repress the insurrection. The true
character of the pretended new State is at once revealed. It is seen
to be a power existing in pronunciamento only, It has never won a
field. It has obtained no forts that were not virtually betrayed
into its hands or seized in breach of trust. It commands not a
single port on the coast nor any highway out from its pretended
capital by land. Under these circumstances Great Britain is called
upon to intervene and give it body and independence by resisting our
measures of suppression. British recognition would be British
intervention to create within our own territory a hostile state by
overthrowing this republic itself. [When this act of intervention is
distinctly performed, we from that hour shall cease to be friends,
and become once more, as we have twice before been forced to be,
enemies of Great Britain.]
As to the treatment of privateers in the insurgent service, you will
say that this is a question exclusively our own. We treat them as
pirates. They are our own citizens, or persons employed by our
citizens, preying on the commerce of our country. If Great Britain
shall choose to recognize them as lawful belligerents, and give them
shelter from our pursuit and punishment, the laws of nations afford
an adequate and proper remedy [and we shall avail ourselves of it.
And while you need not say this in advance, be sure that you say
nothing inconsistent with it.]
Happily, however, her Britannic Majesty's government can avoid all
these difficulties. It invited us in 1856 to accede to the
declaration of the Congress of Paris, of which body Great Britain was
herself a member, abolishing privateering everywhere in all cases and
forever. You already have our authority to propose to her our
accession to that declaration. If she refuse to receive it, it can
only be because she is willing to become the patron of privateering
when aimed at our devastation.
These positions are not elaborately defended now, because to
vindicate them would imply a possibility of our waiving them.
1 We are not insensible of the grave importance of
1(Drop all from this line to the end, and in lieu of it write, "This
paper is for your own guidance only, and not [sic] to be read or
shown to any one.)
(Secretary Seward, when the despatch was returned to him, added an
introductory paragraph stating that the document was strictly
confidential. For this reason these last two paragraphs remained as
they are here printed.)
this occasion. We see how, upon the result of the debate in which we
are engaged, a war may ensue between the United States and one, two,
or even more European nations. War in any case is as exceptionable
from the habits as it is revolting from the sentiments of the
American people. But if it come, it will be fully seen that it
results from the action of Great Britain, not our own; that Great
Britain will have decided to fraternize with our domestic enemy,
either without waiting to hear from you our remonstrances and our
warnings, or after having heard them. War in defense of national
life is not immoral, and war in defense of independence is an
inevitable part of the discipline of nations.
The dispute will be between the European and the American branches of
the British race. All who belong to that race will especially
deprecate it, as they ought. It may well be believed that men of
every race and kindred will deplore it. A war not unlike it between
the same parties occurred at the close of the last century. Europe
atoned by forty years of suffering for the error that Great Britain
committed in provoking that contest. If that nation shall now repeat
the same great error, the social convulsions which will follow may
not be so long, but they will be more general. When they shall have
ceased, it will, we think, be seen, whatever may have been the
fortunes of other nations, that it is not the United States that will
have come out of them with its precious Constitution altered or its
honestly obtained dominion in any degree abridged. Great Britain has
but to wait a few months and all her present inconveniences will
cease with all our own troubles. If she take a different course, she
will calculate for herself the ultimate as well as the immediate
consequences, and will consider what position she will hold when she
shall have forever lost the sympathies and the affections of the only
nation on whose sympathies and affections she has a natural claim.
In making that calculation she will do well to remember that in the
controversy she proposes to open we shall be actuated by neither
pride, nor passion, nor cupidity, nor ambition; but we shall stand
simply on the principle of self-preservation, and that our cause will
involve the independence of nations and the rights of human nature.
I am, Sir, respectfully your obedient servant,
W. H. S.
CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., etc,
TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR,
EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 21, 1861.
HON. SECRETARY OF WAR.
MY DEAR SIR:--Why cannot Colonel Small's Philadelphia regiment be
received? I sincerely wish it could. There is something strange
about it. Give these gentlemen an interview, and take their
regiment.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO GOVERNOR MORGAN.
WASHINGTON, May 12, 1861
GOVERNOR E. D. MORGAN, Albany, N.Y.
I wish to see you face to face to clear these difficulties about
forwarding troops from New York.
A. LINCOLN.
TO CAPTAIN DAHLGREEN.
EXECUTIVE, MANSION, May 23, 1863.
CAPT. DAHLGREEN.
MY DEAR SIR:--Allow me to introduce Col. J. A. McLernand, M.C. of my
own district in Illinois. If he should desire to visit Fortress
Monroe, please introduce him to the captain of one of the vessels in
our service, and pass him down and back.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
LETTER OF CONDOLENCE TO ONE OF FIRST CASUALTIES
TO COLONEL ELLSWORTH'S PARENTS,
WASHINGTON, D.C., May 25, 1861
TO THE FATHER AND MOTHER
OF COL. ELMER E. ELLSWORTH.
MY DEAR SIR AND MADAME:--In the untimely loss of your noble son, our
affliction here is scarcely less than your own. So much of promised
usefulness to one's country, and of bright hopes for one's self and
friends, have never been so suddenly dashed as in his fall. In size,
in years, and in youthful appearance a boy only, his power to command
men was surpassingly great. This power, combined with a fine
intellectual and indomitable energy, and a taste altogether military,
constituted in him, as seemed to me, the best natural talent in that
department I ever knew. And yet he was singularly modest and
deferential in social intercourse. My acquaintance with him began
less than two years ago; yet, through the latter half of the
intervening period, it was as intense as the disparity of our ages
and my engrossing engagements would permit. To me he appeared to
have no indulgences or pastimes, and I never heard him utter a
profane or an intemperate word. What was conclusive of his good
heart, he never forgot his parents. The honors he labored for so
laudably, and for which, in the sad end, he so gallantly gave his
life, he meant for them no less than for himself.
In the hope that it may be no intrusion upon the sacredness of your
sorrow, I have ventured to address you this tribute to the memory of
my young friend and your brave and early fallen son.
May God give you the consolation which is beyond all early power.
Sincerely your friend in common affliction,
A. LINCOLN.
TO COLONEL BARTLETT.
WASHINGTON, May 27, 1861
COL. W. A. BARTLETT, New York.
The Naval Brigade was to go to Fort Monroe without trouble to the
government, and must so go or not at all.
A. LINCOLN.
MEMORANDUM ABOUT INDIANA REGIMENTS.
WASHINGTON, JUNE 11, 1861
The government has already accepted ten regiments from the State of
Indiana. I think at least six more ought to be received from that
State, two to be those of Colonel James W. McMillan and Colonel
William L. Brown, and the other four to be designated by the Governor
of the State of Indiana, and to be received into the volunteer
service of the United States according to the "Plan of Organization"
in the General Orders of the War Department, No.15. When they report
to Major-General McClellan in condition to pass muster according to
that order, and with the approval of the Secretary of War to be
indorsed hereon, and left in his department, I direct that the whole
six, or any smaller number of such regiments, be received.
A. LINCOLN.
TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, JUNE 13, 1861
HON. SECRETARY OF WAR.
MY DEAR SIR:--There is, it seems, a regiment in Massachusetts
commanded by Fletcher Webster, and which HON. Daniel Webster's old
friends very much wish to get into the service. If it can be
received with the approval of your department and the consent of the
Governor of Massachusetts I shall indeed be much gratified. Give Mr.
Ashmun a chance to explain fully.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, JUNE 13, 1861
HON. SECRETARY OF WAR.
MY DEAR SIR -I think it is entirely safe to accept a fifth regiment
from Michigan, and with your approbation I should say a regiment
presented by Col. T. B. W. Stockton, ready for service within two
weeks from now, will be received. Look at Colonel Stockton's
testimonials.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 17, 1861
HON. SECRETARY Of WAR.
MY DEAR SIR:--With your concurrence, and that of the Governor of
Indiana, I am in favor of accepting into what we call the three
years' service any number not exceeding four additional regiments
from that State. Probably they should come from the triangular
region between the Ohio and Wabash Rivers, including my own old
boyhood home. Please see HON. C. M. Allen, Speaker of the Indiana
House of Representatives, and unless you perceive good reason to the
contrary, draw up an order for him according to the above.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, JUNE 17,1861
HON. SECRETARY OF WAR.
MY DEAR SIR:--With your concurrence, and that of the Governor of
Ohio, I am in favor of receiving into what we call the three years'
service any number not exceeding six additional regiments from that
State, unless you perceive good reasons to the contrary. Please see
HON. John A. Gurley, who bears this, and make an order corresponding
with the above.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO N. W. EDWARDS
WASHINGTON, D. C., June 19, 1861
Hon. N. W. EDWARDS
MY DEAR SIR:
.............
.............
When you wrote me some time ago in reference to looking up something
in the departments here, I thought I would inquire into the thing and
write you, but the extraordinary pressure upon me diverted me from
it, and soon it passed out of my mind. The thing you proposed, it
seemed to me, I ought to understand myself before it was set on foot
by my direction or permission; and I really had no time to make
myself acquainted with it. Nor have I yet. And yet I am unwilling,
of course, that you should be deprived of a chance to make something,
if it can be done without injustice to the Government, or to any
individual. If you choose to come here and point out to me how this
can be done I shall not only not object, but shall be gratified to be
able to oblige you.
Your friend as ever
A. LINCOLN.
TO SECRETARY CAMERON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 20, 1861.
MY DEAR SIR:--Since you spoke to me yesterday about General J. H.
Lane, of Kansas, I have been reflecting upon the subject, and have
concluded that we need the service of such a man out there at once;
that we had better appoint him a brigadier-general of volunteers
to-day, and send him off with such authority to raise a force (I
think two regiments better than three, but as to this I am not
particular) as you think will get him into actual work quickest.
Tell him, when he starts, to put it through not to be writing or
telegraphing back here, but put it through.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
HON. SECRETARY OF WAR.
[Indorsement.]
General Lane has been authorized to raise two additional regiments of
volunteers.
SIMON CAMERON, Secretary o f War.
TO THE KENTUCKY DELEGATION.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 29, 1861.
GENTLEMEN OF THE KENTUCKY DELEGATION WHO ARE FOR THE UNION:
I somewhat wish to authorize my friend Jesse Bayles to raise a
Kentucky regiment, but I do not wish to do it without your consent.
If you consent, please write so at the bottom of this.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
We consent:
R. MALLORY.
H. GRIDER.
G. W. DUNLAP.
J. S. JACKSON.
C. A. WICKLIFFE.
August 5, 1861.
I repeat, I would like for Col. Bayles to raise a regiment of cavalry
whenever the Union men of Kentucky desire or consent to it.
A. LINCOLN.
ORDER AUTHORIZING GENERAL SCOTT TO SUSPEND THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS,
JULY 2, 1861
TO THE COMMANDING GENERAL,
ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES:
You are engaged in suppressing an insurrection against the laws of
the United States. If at any point on or in the vicinity of any
military line which is now or which shall be used between the city of
New York and the city of Washington you find resistance which renders
it necessary to suspend the writ of habeas corpus for the public
safety, you personally, or through the officer in command at the
point where resistance occurs, are authorized to suspend that writ.
Given under my hand and the seal of the United States at the city of
Washington, this second day of July, A.D. 1861, and of the
independence of the United States the eighty-fifth.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.
TO SECRETARY SEWARD.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, JULY 3, 1861
HON. SECRETARY OF STATE.
MY DEAR SIR:--General Scott had sent me a copy of the despatch of
which you kindly sent one. Thanks to both him and you. Please
assemble the Cabinet at twelve to-day to look over the message and
reports.
And now, suppose you step over at once and let us see General Scott
(and) General Cameron about assigning a position to General Fremont.
Yours as ever,
A. LINCOLN.
MESSAGE TO CONGRESS IN SPECIAL SESSION,
JULY 4, 1861.
FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:--Having
been convened on an extraordinary occasion, as authorized by the
Constitution, your attention is not called to any ordinary subject of
legislation.
At the beginning of the present Presidential term, four months ago,
the functions of the Federal Government were found to be generally
suspended within the several States of South Carolina, Georgia,
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida, excepting only those of
the Post-Office Department.
Within these States all the forts, arsenals, dockyards,
custom-houses, and the like, including the movable and stationary
property in and about them, had been seized, and were held in open
hostility to this government, excepting only Forts Pickens, Taylor,
and Jefferson, on and near the Florida coast, and Fort Sumter, in
Charleston Harbor, South Carolina. The forts thus seized had been
put in improved condition, new ones had been built, and armed forces
had been organized and were organizing, all avowedly with the same
hostile purpose.
The forts remaining in the possession of the Federal Government in
and near these States were either besieged or menaced by warlike
preparations, and especially Fort Sumter was nearly surrounded by
well-protected hostile batteries, with guns equal in quality to the
best of its own, and outnumbering the latter as perhaps ten to one.
A disproportionate share of the Federal muskets and rifles had
somehow found their way into these States, and had been seized to be
used against the government. Accumulations of the public revenue
lying within them had been seized for the same object. The navy was
scattered in distant seas, leaving but a very small part of it within
the immediate reach of the government. Officers of the Federal army
and navy had resigned in great numbers; and of those resigning a
large proportion had taken up arms against the government.
Simultaneously, and in connection with all this, the purpose to sever
the Federal Union was openly avowed. In accordance with this
purpose, an ordinance had been adopted in each of these States,
declaring the States respectively to be separated from the national
Union. A formula for instituting a combined government of these
States had been promulgated; and this illegal organization, in the
character of confederate States, was already invoking recognition,
aid, and intervention from foreign powers.
Finding this condition of things, and believing it to be an
imperative duty upon the incoming executive to prevent, if possible,
the consummation of such attempt to destroy the Federal Union, a
choice of means to that end became indispensable. This choice was
made and was declared in the inaugural address. The policy chosen
looked to the exhaustion of all peaceful measures before a resort to
any stronger ones. It sought only to hold the public places and
property not already wrested from the government, and to collect the
revenue, relying for the rest on time, discussion, and the
ballot-box. It promised a continuance of the mails, at government
expense, to the very people who were resisting the government; and it
gave repeated pledges against any disturbance to any of the people,
or any of their rights. Of all that which a President might
constitutionally and justifiably do in such a case, everything was
forborne without which it was believed possible to keep the
government on foot.
On the 5th of March (the present incumbent's first full day in
office), a letter of Major Anderson, commanding at Fort Sumter,
written on the 28th of February and received at the War Department on
the 4th of March, was by that department placed in his hands. This
letter expressed the professional opinion of the writer that
reinforcements could not be thrown into that fort within the time for
his relief, rendered necessary by the limited supply of provisions,
and with a view of holding possession of the same, with a force of
less than twenty thousand good and well-disciplined men. This
opinion was concurred in by all the officers of his command, and
their memoranda on the subject were made inclosures of Major
Anderson's letter. The whole was immediately laid before
Lieutenant-General Scott, who at once concurred with Major Anderson
in opinion. On reflection, however, he took full time, consulting
with other officers, both of the army and the navy, and at the end of
four days came reluctantly but decidedly to the same conclusion as
before. He also stated at the same time that no such sufficient
force was then at the control of the government, or could be raised
and brought to the ground within the time when the provisions in the
fort would be exhausted. In a purely military point of view, this
reduced the duty of the administration in the case to the mere matter
of getting the garrison safely out of the fort.
It was believed, however, that to so abandon that position, under the
circumstances, would be utterly ruinous; that the necessity under
which it was to be done would not be fully understood; that by many
it would be construed as a part of a voluntary policy; that at home
it would discourage the friends of the Union, embolden its
adversaries, and go far to insure to the latter a recognition abroad;
that in fact, it would be our national destruction consummated. This
could not be allowed. Starvation was not yet upon the garrison, and
ere it would be reached Fort Pickens might be reinforced. This last
would be a clear indication of policy, and would better enable the
country to accept the evacuation of Fort Sumter as a military
necessity. An order was at once directed to be sent for the landing
of the troops from the steamship Brooklyn into Fort Pickens. This
order could not go by land, but must take the longer and slower route
by sea. The first return news from the order was received just one
week before the fall of Fort Sumter. The news itself was that the
officer commanding the Sabine, to which vessel the troops had been
transferred from the Brooklyn, acting upon some quasi armistice of
the late administration (and of the existence of which the present
administration, up to the time the order was despatched, had only too
vague and uncertain rumors to fix attention), had refused to land the
troops. To now reinforce Fort Pickens before a crisis would be
reached at Fort Sumter was impossible--rendered so by the near
exhaustion of provisions in the latter-named fort. In precaution
against such a conjuncture, the government had, a few days before,
commenced preparing an expedition as well adapted as might be to
relieve Fort Sumter, which expedition was intended to be ultimately
used, or not, according to circumstances. The strongest anticipated
case for using it was now presented, and it was resolved to send it
forward. As had been intended in this contingency, it was also
resolved to notify the governor of South Carolina that he might
expect an attempt would be made to provision the fort; and that, if
the attempt should not be resisted, there would be no effort to throw
in men, arms, or ammunition, without further notice, or in case of an
attack upon the fort. This notice was accordingly given; whereupon
the fort was attacked and bombarded to its fall, without even
awaiting the arrival of the provisioning expedition.
It is thus seen that the assault upon and reduction of Fort Sumter
was in no sense a matter of self-defense on the part of the
assailants. They well knew that the garrison in the fort could by no
possibility commit aggression upon them. They knew--they were
expressly notified--that the giving of bread to the few brave and
hungry men of the garrison was all which would on that occasion be
attempted, unless themselves, by resisting so much, should provoke
more. They knew that this government desired to keep the garrison in
the fort, not to assail them, but merely to maintain visible
possession, and thus to preserve the Union from actual and immediate
dissolution--trusting, as hereinbefore stated, to time, discussion,
and the ballot-box for final adjustment; and they assailed and
reduced the fort for precisely the reverse object--to drive out the
visible authority of the Federal Union, and thus force it to
immediate dissolution. That this was their object the executive well
understood; and having said to them in the inaugural address, "You
can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors," he
took pains not only to keep this declaration good, but also to keep
the case so free from the power of ingenious sophistry that the world
should not be able to misunderstand it. By the affair at Fort
Sumter, with its surrounding circumstances, that point was reached.
Then and thereby the assailants of the government began the conflict
of arms, without a gun in sight or in expectancy to return their
fire, save only the few in the fort sent to that harbor years before
for their own protection, and still ready to give that protection in
whatever was lawful. In this act, discarding all else, they have
forced upon the country the distinct issue, "immediate dissolution or
blood."
And this issue embraces more than the fate of these United States.
It presents to the whole family of man the question whether a
constitutional republic or democracy--a government of the people by
the same people--can or cannot maintain its territorial integrity
against its own domestic foes. It presents the question whether
discontented individuals, too few in numbers to control
administration according to organic law in any case, can always, upon
the pretenses made in this case, or on any other pretenses, or
arbitrarily without any pretense, break up their government, and thus
practically put an end to free government upon the earth. It forces
us to ask: Is there in all republics this inherent and fatal
weakness? Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the
liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own
existence?
So viewing the issue, no choice was left but to call out the war
power of the government, and so to resist force employed for its
destruction by force for its preservation.
The call was made, and the response of the country was most
gratifying, surpassing in unanimity and spirit the most sanguine
expectation. Yet none of the States commonly called slave States,
except Delaware, gave a regiment through regular State organization.
A few regiments have been organized within some others of those
States by individual enterprise, and received into the government
service. Of course the seceded States, so called (and to which Texas
had been joined about the time of the inauguration), gave no troops
to the cause of the Union.
The border States, so called, were not uniform in their action, some
of them being almost for the Union, while in others--as Virginia,
North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas--the Union sentiment was
nearly repressed and silenced. The course taken in Virginia was the
most remarkable--perhaps the most important. A convention elected by
the people of that State to consider this very question of disrupting
the Federal Union was in session at the capital of Virginia when Fort
Sumter fell. To this body the people had chosen a large majority of
professed Union men. Almost immediately after the fall of Sumter,
many members of that majority went over to the original disunion
minority, and with them adopted an ordinance for withdrawing the
State from the Union. Whether this change was wrought by their great
approval of the assault upon Sumter, or their great resentment at the
government's resistance to that assault, is not definitely known.
Although they submitted the ordinance for ratification to a vote of
the people, to be taken on a day then somewhat more than a month
distant, the convention and the Legislature (which was also in
session at the same time and place), with leading men of the State
not members of either, immediately commenced acting as if the State
were already out of the Union. They pushed military preparations
vigorously forward all over the State. They seized the United States
armory at Harper's Ferry, and the navy-yard at Gosport, near Norfolk.
They received perhaps invited--into their State large bodies of
troops, with their warlike appointments, from the so-called seceded
States. They formally entered into a treaty of temporary alliance
and co-operation with the so-called "Confederate States," and sent
members to their congress at Montgomery. And finally, they permitted
the insurrectionary government to be transferred to their capital at
Richmond.
The people of Virginia have thus allowed this giant insurrection to
make its nest within her borders; and this government has no choice
left but to deal with it where it finds it. And it has the less
regret as the loyal citizens have, in due form, claimed its
protection. Those loyal citizens this government is bound to
recognize and protect, as being Virginia.
In the border States, so called,--in fact, the middle States,--there
are those who favor a policy which they call "armed neutrality"; that
is, an arming of those States to prevent the Union forces passing one
way, or the disunion the other, over their soil. This would be
disunion completed. Figuratively speaking, it would be the building
of an impassable wall along the line of separation--and yet not quite
an impassable one, for under the guise of neutrality it would tie the
hands of Union men and freely pass supplies from among them to the
insurrectionists, which it could not do as an open enemy. At a
stroke it would take all the trouble off the hands of secession,
except only what proceeds from the external blockade. It would do
for the disunionists that which, of all things, they most desire--
feed them well and give them disunion without a struggle of their
own. It recognizes no fidelity to the Constitution, no obligation to
maintain the Union; and while very many who have favored it are
doubtless loyal citizens, it is, nevertheless, very injurious in
effect.
Recurring to the action of the government, it may be stated that at
first a call was made for 75,000 militia; and, rapidly following
this, a proclamation was issued for closing the ports of the
insurrectionary districts by proceedings in the nature of blockade.
So far all was believed to be strictly legal. At this point the
insurrectionists announced their purpose to enter upon the practice
of privateering.
Other calls were made for volunteers to serve for three years, unless
sooner discharged, and also for large additions to the regular army
and navy. These measures, whether strictly legal or not, were
ventured upon, under what appeared to be a popular demand and a
public necessity; trusting then, as now, that Congress would readily
ratify them. It is believed that nothing has been done beyond the
constitutional competency of Congress.
Soon after the first call for militia, it was considered a duty to
authorize the commanding general in proper cases, according to his
discretion, to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus,
or, in other words, to arrest and detain, without resort to the
ordinary processes and forms of law, such individuals as he might
deem dangerous to the public safety. This authority has purposely
been exercised but very sparingly. Nevertheless, the legality and
propriety of what has been done under it are questioned, and the
attention of the country has been called to the proposition that one
who has sworn to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed"
should not himself violate them. Of course some consideration was
given to the questions of power and propriety before this matter was
acted upon. The whole of the laws which were required to be
faithfully executed were being resisted and failing of execution in
nearly one third of the States. Must they be allowed to finally fail
of execution, even had it been perfectly clear that by the use of the
means necessary to their execution some single law, made in such
extreme tenderness of the citizen's liberty that, practically, it
relieves more of the guilty than of the innocent, should to a very
limited extent be violated? To state the question more directly, are
all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the government itself go
to pieces lest that one be violated? Even in such a case, would not
the official oath be broken if the government should be overthrown
when it was believed that disregarding the single law would tend to
preserve it? But it was not believed that this question was
presented. It was not believed that any law was violated. The
provision of the Constitution that "the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of
rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it," is
equivalent to a provision--is a provision--that such privilege may be
suspended when, in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety
does require it. It was decided that we have a case of rebellion,
and that the public safety does require the qualified suspension of
the privilege of the writ which was authorized to be made. Now it is
insisted that Congress, and not the executive, is vested with this
power. But the Constitution itself is silent as to which or who is
to exercise the power; and as the provision was plainly made for a
dangerous emergency, it cannot be believed the framers of the
instrument intended that in every case the danger should run its
course until Congress could be called together, the very assembling
of which might be prevented, as was intended in this case, by the
rebellion.
No more extended argument is now offered, as an opinion at some
length will probably be presented by the attorney-general. Whether
there shall be any legislation upon the subject, and if any, what, is
submitted entirely to the better judgment of Congress.
The forbearance of this government had been so extraordinary and so
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.
The reports of the Secretaries of the Treasury, War, and the Navy
will give the information in detail deemed necessary and convenient
for your deliberation and action; while the executive and all the
departments will stand ready to supply omissions, or to communicate
new facts considered important for you to know.
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 debt of
$6oo,ooo,ooo now is a less sum per head than was the debt of our
Revolution when we came out of that struggle; and the money value in
the country now bears even a greater proportion to what it was then
than does the population. Surely each man has as strong a motive now
to preserve our liberties as each had then to establish them.
A right result at this time will be worth more to the world than ten
times the men and ten times the money. The evidence 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 pretense 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 pledge 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 in 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 even 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 as "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 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
State rights, as a principle, is no other than the principle of
generality and locality. Whatever concerns the whole 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. Whether the
national Constitution in defining boundaries between the two has
applied the principle with exact accuracy, is not to be questioned.
We are all bound by that defining, without question.
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 either that creditors
shall go unpaid or the remaining States pay the whole? A part of the
present national debt was contracted to pay the old debts of Texas.
Is it just that she shall leave and pay no part of this herself?
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 for
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 selfish or unjust object. The principle itself
is one of disintegration and upon which no government can possibly
endure.
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.
These politicians are subtle and profound on the rights of
minorities. They are not partial to that power which made the
Constitution and speaks from the preamble calling itself "We, the
People."
It may well be questioned whether there is to-day a majority of the
legally qualified voters of any State except perhaps South Carolina
in favor of disunion. There is much reason to believe that the Union
men are the majority in many, if not in every other one, of the so-
called seceded States. The contrary has not been demonstrated in any
one of them. It is ventured to affirm this even of Virginia and
Tennessee; for the result of an election held in military camps,
where the bayonets are all on one side of the question voted upon,
can scarcely be considered as demonstrating popular sentiment. At
such an election, all that large class who are at once for the Union
and against coercion would be coerced to vote against the Union.
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, 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 this is not true also in the army of our late friends,
now adversaries in this contest; but if it is, so much better the
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 whose existence 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 favored 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.
Great honor is due to those officers who remained true, despite the
example of their treacherous associates; but the greatest honor, and
most important fact of all, is the unanimous firmness of the common
soldiers and common sailors. To the last man, so far as known, they
have successfully resisted the traitorous efforts of those whose
commands, but an hour before, they obeyed as absolute law. This is
the patriotic instinct of the plain people. They understand, without
an argument, that the destroying of the government which was made by
Washington means no good to them.
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 it by a war; teaching all the folly of being the beginners
of a war.
Lest there be some uneasiness in the minds of candid men as to what
is to be the course of the government toward the Southern States
after the rebellion shall have been suppressed, the executive deems
it proper to say it will be his purpose then, as ever, to be guided
by the Constitution and the laws; and that he probably will have no
different understanding of the powers and duties of the Federal
Government relatively to the rights of the States and the people,
under the Constitution, than that expressed in the inaugural address.
He desires to preserve the government, that it may be administered
for all as it was administered by the men who made it. Loyal
citizens everywhere have the right to claim this of their government,
and the government has no right to withhold or neglect it. It is not
perceived that in giving it there is any coercion, any conquest, or
any subjugation, in any just sense of those terms.
The Constitution provides, and all the States have accepted the
provision, that "the United States shall guarantee to every State in
this Union a republican form of government." But if a State may
lawfully go out of the Union, having done so it may also discard the
republican form of government, so that to prevent its going out is an
indispensable means to the end of maintaining the guarantee
mentioned; and when an end is lawful and obligatory, the
indispensable means to it are also lawful and obligatory.
It was with the deepest regret that the executive found the duty of
employing the war power in defense of the government forced upon him.
He could but perform this duty or surrender the existence of the
government. No compromise by public servants could, in this case, be
a cure; not that compromises are not often proper, but that no
popular government can long survive a marked precedent that those who
carry an election can only save the government from immediate
destruction by giving up the main point upon which the people gave
the election. The people themselves, and not their servants, can
safely reverse their own deliberate decisions.
As a private citizen the executive could not have consented that
these institutions shall perish; much less could he in betrayal of so
vast and so sacred a trust as these free people had confided to him.
He felt that he had no moral right to shrink, nor even to count the
chances of his own life, in what might follow. In full view of his
great responsibility he has, so far, done what he has deemed his
duty. You will now, according to your own judgment, perform yours.
He sincerely hopes that your views and your action may so accord with
his as to assure all faithful citizens who have been disturbed in
their rights of a certain and speedy restoration to them, under the
Constitution and the laws.
And having thus chosen our course, without guile and with pure
purpose, let us renew our trust in God, and go forward without fear
and with manly hearts.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN, July 4, 1861
TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 6, 1861.
HON. SEC. OF INTERIOR.
MY DEAR SIR:--Please ask the Comr. of Indian Affairs, and of the
Gen'1 Land Office to come with you, and see me at once. I want the
assistance of all of you in overhauling the list of appointments a
little before I send them to the Senate.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
MESSAGE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the
9th instant, requesting a copy of correspondence upon the subject of
the incorporation of the Dominican republic with the Spanish
monarchy, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State; to whom
the resolution was referred.
WASHINGTON, July 11, 1861.
MESSAGE TO CONGRESS.
TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I transmit to Congress a copy of correspondence between the Secretary
of State and her Britannic Majesty's envoy extraordinary and minister
plenipotentiary accredited to this government, relative to the
exhibition of the products of industry of all nations, which is to
take place at London in the course of next year. As citizens of the
United States may justly pride themselves upon their proficiency in
industrial arts, it is desirable that they should have proper
facilities toward taking part in the exhibition. With this view I
recommend such legislation by Congress at this session as may be
necessary for that purpose.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
WASHINGTON, July 16, 1861
MESSAGE TO CONGRESS.
TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
As the United States have, in common with Great Britain and France, a
deep interest in the preservation and development of the fisheries
adjacent to the northeastern coast and islands of this continent, it
seems proper that we should concert with the governments of those
countries such measures as may be conducive to those important
objects. With this view I transmit to Congress a copy of a
correspondence between the Secretary of State and the British
minister here, in which the latter proposes, on behalf of his
government, the appointment of a joint commission to inquire into the
matter, in order that such ulterior measures may be adopted as may be
advisable for the objects proposed. Such legislation recommended as
may be necessary to enable th executive to provide for a commissioner
on behalf of the United States:
WASHINGTON, JULY 19, 1861.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
TO THE ADJUTANT-GENERAL
WASHINGTON, JULY 19, 1861
ADJUTANT-GENERAL:
I have agreed, and do agree, that the two Indian regiments named
within shall be accepted if the act of Congress shall admit it. Let
there be no further question about it.
A. LINCOLN.
MEMORANDA OF MILITARY POLICY SUGGESTED BY THE
BULL RUN DEFEAT.
JULY 23, 1861
1. Let the plan for making the blockade effective be pushed forward
with all possible despatch.
2. Let the volunteer forces at Fort Monroe and vicinity under
General Butler be constantly drilled, disciplined, and instructed
without more for the present.
3. Let Baltimore be held as now, with a gentle but firm and certain
hand.
4. Let the force now under Patterson or Banks be strengthened and made
secure in its position.
5. Let the forces in Western Virginia act till further orders
according to instructions or orders from General McClellan.
6. [Let] General Fremont push forward his organization and operations
in the West as rapidly as possible, giving rather special attention
to Missouri.
7. Let the forces late before Manassas, except the three-months men,
be reorganized as rapidly as possible in their camps here and about
Arlington.
8. Let the three-months forces who decline to enter the longer service
be discharged as rapidly as circumstances will permit.
9. Let the new volunteer forces be brought forward as fast as
possible, and especially into the camps on the two sides of the river
here.
When the foregoing shall be substantially attended to:
1. Let Manassas Junction (or some point on one or other of the
railroads near it) and Strasburg be seized, and permanently held,
with an open line from Washington to Manassas, and an open line from
Harper's Ferry to Strasburg the military men to find the way of doing
these.
2. This done, a joint movement from Cairo on Memphis; and from
Cincinnati on East Tennessee.
TO THE GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY.
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 24, 1861
THE GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY.
SIR:--Together with the regiments of three years' volunteers which
the government already has in service in your State, enough to make
eight in all, if tendered in a reasonable time, will be accepted, the
new regiments to be taken, as far as convenient, from the three
months' men and officers just discharged, and to be organized,
equipped, and sent forward as fast as single regiments are ready, On
the same terms as were those already in the service from that State.
Your obedient servant,
A. LINCOLN.
[Indorsement.]
This order is entered in the War Department, and the Governor of New
Jersey is authorized to furnish the regiments with wagons and horses.
S. CAMERON, Secretary of War.
MESSAGE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the
22d instant; requesting a copy of the correspondence between this,
government and foreign powers with reference to maritime right , I
transmit a report from the Secretary of State.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
WASHINGTON, July 25, 1861
MESSAGE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the
15th instant, requesting a copy of the correspondence between this
government and foreign powers on the subject of the existing
insurrection in the United States, I transmit a report from the
Secretary of State.
WASHINGTON, July 25, 1861.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
TO SECRETARY CHASE.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, JULY 16, 1861
MR CHASE:--The bearer, Mr._____ , wants ________in the custom house
at Baltimore. If his recommendations are satisfactory, and I
recollect them to have been so, the fact that he is urged by the
Methodists should be in his favor, as they complain of us some.
LINCOLN.
MESSAGE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the
24th instant, asking the grounds, reasons, and evidence upon which
the police Commissioners of Baltimore were arrested and are now
detained as prisoners at Port McHenry, I have to state that it is
judged to be incompatible with the public interest at this time to
furnish the information called for by the resolution.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
WASHINGTON, JULY 27, 1861
MESSAGE TO THE SENATE.
TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:
In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 19th instant
requesting information concerning the quasi armistice alluded to in
my message of the 4th instant, I transmit a report from the Secretary
of the Navy.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
JULY 30, 1861
MESSAGE TO THE SENATE.
TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:
In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 23d instant
requesting information concerning the imprisonment of Lieutenant John
J. Worden (John L. Worden) of the United States navy, I transmit a
report from the Secretary of the Navy.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
July 30, 1861
ORDER TO UNITED STATES MARSHALS.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D.C.,
JULY 31, 1861
The Marshals of the United States in the vicinity of forts where
political prisoners are held will supply decent lodging and
sustenance for such prisoners unless they shall prefer to provide in
those respects for themselves, in which case they will be allowed to
do so by the commanding officer in charge.
Approved, and the Secretary of the State will transmit the order to
the Marshals, to the Lieutenant-General, and the Secretary of the
Interior.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
MESSAGE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of
yesterday, requesting information regarding the imprisonment of loyal
citizens of the United States by the forces now in rebellion against
this government, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, and
the copy of a telegraphic despatch by which it was accompanied.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
WASHINGTON, August 2, 1861.
MESSAGE TO THE SENATE.
TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:
In answer to the resolution of your honorable body of date July 31,
1861, requesting the President to inform the Senate whether the Hon.
James H. Lane, a member of that body from Kansas, has been appointed
a brigadier-general in the army of the United States, and if so,
whether he has accepted such appointment, I have the honor to
transmit herewith certain papers, numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7,
which, taken together, explain themselves, and which contain all the
information I possess upon the questions propounded.
It was my intention, as shown by my letter of June 20, 1861, to
appoint Hon. James H. Lane, of Kansas, a brigadier-general of United
States volunteers in anticipation of the act of Congress, since
passed, for raising such volunteers; and I have no further knowledge
upon the subject, except as derived from the papers herewith
enclosed.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 5, 1861
TO SECRETARY CAMERON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, AUGUST 7, 1861
HON. SECRETARY OF WAR
MY DEAR SIR:--The within paper, as you see, is by HON. John S. Phelps
and HON. Frank P. Blair, Jr., both members of the present Congress
from Missouri. The object is to get up an efficient force of
Missourians in the southwestern part of the State. It ought to be
done, and Mr. Phelps ought to have general superintendence of it.
I see by a private report to me from the department that eighteen
regiments are already accepted from Missouri. Can it not be arranged
that part of them (not yet organized, as I understand) may be taken
from the locality mentioned and put under the control of Mr. Phelps,
and let him have discretion to accept them for a shorter term than
three years--or the war--understanding, however, that he will get
them for the full term if he can? I hope this can be done, because
Mr. Phelps is too zealous and efficient and understands his ground
too well for us to lose his service. Of course provision for arming,
equipping, etc., must be made. Mr. Phelps is here, and wishes to
carry home with him authority for this matter.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN
PROCLAMATION OF A NATIONAL FAST-DAY,
AUGUST 12, 1861.
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA
A Proclamation.
Whereas a joint committee of both houses of Congress has waited on
the President of the United States and requested him to "recommend a
day of public humiliation, prayer, and fasting to be observed by the
people of the United States with religious solemnities and the
offering of fervent supplications to Almighty God for the safety and
welfare of these States, His blessings on their arms, and a speedy
restoration of peace"; and
Whereas it is fit and becoming in all people at all times to
acknowledge and revere the supreme government of God, to bow in
humble submission to His chastisements, to confess and deplore their
sins and transgressions in the full conviction that the fear of the
Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and to pray with all fervency and
contrition for the pardon of their past offences and for a blessing
upon their present and prospective action; and
Whereas when our own beloved country, once, by the blessing of God,
united, prosperous, and happy, is now afflicted with faction and
civil war, it is peculiarly fit for us to recognize the hand of God
in this terrible visitation, and in sorrowful remembrance of our own
faults and crimes as a nation and as individuals to humble ourselves
before Him and to pray for His mercy-to pray that we may be spared
further punishment, though most justly deserved, that our arms may be
blessed and made effectual for the re-establishment of order, law,
and peace throughout the wide extent of our country, and that the
inestimable boon of civil and religious liberty, earned under His
guidance and blessing by the labors and sufferings of our fathers,
may be restored in all its original excellence
Therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do
appoint the last Thursday in September next as a day of humiliation,
prayer, and fasting for all the people of the nation. And I do
earnestly recommend to all the people, and especially to all
ministers and teachers of religion of all denominations and to all
heads of families, to observe and keep that day according to their
several creeds and modes of worship in all humility and with all
religious solemnity, to the end that the united prayer of the nation
may ascend to the Throne of Grace and bring down plentiful blessings
upon our country.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand
and caused the seal of the United States to
[SEAL.] be affixed, this twelfth day of August, A. D.
1861, and of the independence of the United
States of America the eighty-sixth.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
By the President
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary o f State.
TO JAMES POLLOCK.
WASHINGTON, AUGUST 15, 1861
HON. JAMES POLLOCK.
MY DEAR SIR:--You must make a job for the bearer of this--make a job
of it with the collector and have it done. You can do it for me and
you must.
Yours as ever,
A. LINCOLN
TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR O. P. MORTON.
WASHINGTON, D.C. , AUGUST 15, 1861
GOVERNOR MORTON, Indiana:
Start your four regiments to St. Louis at the earliest moment
possible. Get such harness as may be necessary for your rifled gums.
Do not delay a single regiment, but hasten everything forward as soon
as any one regiment is ready. Have your three additional regiments
organized at once. We shall endeavor to send you the arms this week.
A. LINCOLN
TELEGRAM TO GENERAL FREMONT,
WASHINGTON, August 15, 1861
TO MAJOR-GENERAL FREMONT:
Been answering your messages since day before yesterday. Do you
receive the answers? The War Department has notified all the
governors you designate to forward all available force. So
telegraphed you. Have you received these messages? Answer
immediately.
A. LINCOLN.
PROCLAMATION FORBIDDING INTERCOURSE WITH
REBEL STATES, AUGUST 16, 1861.
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA:
A Proclamation.
Whereas on the fifteenth day of April, eighteen hundred and sixty-
one, the President of the United States, in view of an insurrection
against the laws, Constitution, and government of the United States
which had broken out within the States of South Carolina, Georgia,
Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and in pursuance
of the provisions of the act entitled "An act to provide for calling
forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress
insurrections, and repel invasions, and to repeal the act now in
force for that purpose," approved February twenty-eighth, seventeen
hundred and ninety-five, did call forth the militia to suppress said
insurrection, and to cause the laws of the Union to be duly executed,
and the insurgents have failed to disperse by the time directed by
the President; and whereas such insurrection has since broken out and
yet exists within the States of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee,
and Arkansas; and whereas the insurgents in all the said States claim
to act under the authority thereof, and such claim is not disclaimed
or repudiated by the persons exercising the functions of government
in such State or States, or in the part or parts thereof in which
such combinations exist, nor has such insurrection been suppressed by
said States:
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States,
in pursuance of an act of Congress approved July thirteen, eighteen
hundred and sixty-one, do hereby declare that the inhabitants of the
said States of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina,
Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, and
Florida (except the inhabitants of that part of the State of Virginia
lying west of the Allegheny Mountains, and of such other parts of
that State, and the other States hereinbefore named, as may maintain
a loyal adhesion to the Union and the Constitution, or may be time to
time occupied and controlled by forces of the United States engaged
in the dispersion of said insurgents), are in a state of insurrection
against the United States, and that all commercial intercourse
between the same and the inhabitants thereof, with the exceptions
aforesaid, and the citizens of other States and other parts of the
United States, is unlawful, and will remain unlawful until such
insurrection shall cease or has been suppressed; that all goods and
chattels, wares and merchandise, coming from any of said States, with
the exceptions aforesaid, into other parts of the United States,
without the special license and permission of the President, through
the Secretary of the Treasury, or proceeding to any of said States,
with the exceptions aforesaid, by land or water, together with the
vessel or vehicle conveying the same, or conveying persons to or from
said States, with said exceptions, will be forfeited to the United
States; and that from and after fifteen days from the issuing of this
proclamation all ships and vessels belonging in whole or in part to
any citizen or inhabitant of any of said States, with said
exceptions, found at sea, or in any port of the United States, will
be forfeited to the United States; and I hereby enjoin upon all
district attorneys, marshals, and officers of the revenue and of the
military and naval forces of the United States to be vigilant in the
execution of said act, and in the enforcement of the penalties and
forfeitures imposed or declared by it; leaving any party who may
think himself aggrieved thereby to his application to the Secretary
of the Treasury for the remission of any penalty or forfeiture, which
the said Secretary is authorized by law to grant if, in his judgment,
the special circumstances of any case shall require such remission.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand,...................
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of Sate.
TO SECRETARY CAMERON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 17, 1861
HON. SECRETARY OF WAR.
MY DEAR SIR:--Unless there be reason to the contrary, not known to
me, make out a commission for Simon B. Buckner, of Kentucky, as a
brigadier-general of volunteers. It is to be put into the hands of
General Anderson, and delivered to General Buckner or not, at the
discretion of General Anderson. Of course it is to remain a secret
unless and until the commission is delivered.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN
Same day made.
[Indorsement.]
TO GOVERNOR MAGOFFIN,
WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 24, 1861
To HIS EXCELLENCY B. MAGOFFIN,
Governor of the State of Kentucky.
SIR:--Your letter of the 19th instant, in which you urge the removal
from the limits of Kentucky of the military force now organized and
in camp within that State," is received.
I may not possess full and precisely accurate knowledge upon this
subject; but I believe it is true that there is a military force in
camp within Kentucky, acting by authority of the United States, which
force is not very large, and is not now being augmented.
I also believe that some arms have been furnished to this force by
the United States.
I also believe this force consists exclusively of Kentuckians, having
their camp in the immediate vicinity of their own homes, and not
assailing or menacing any of the good people of Kentucky.
In all I have done in the premises I have acted upon the urgent
solicitation of many Kentuckians, and in accordance with what I
believed, and still believe, to be the wish of a majority of all the
Union-loving people of Kentucky.
While I have conversed on this subject with many eminent men of
Kentucky, including a large majority of her members of Congress, I do
not remember that any one of them, or any other person, except your
Excellency and the bearers of your Excellency's letter, has urged me
to remove the military force from Kentucky or to disband it. One
other very worthy citizen of Kentucky did solicit me to have the
augmenting of the force suspended for a time.
Taking all the means within my reach to form a judgment, I do not
believe it is the popular wish of Kentucky that this force shall be
removed beyond her limits; and, with this impression, I must
respectfully decline to so remove it.
I most cordially sympathize with your Excellency in the wish to
preserve the peace of my own native State, Kentucky. It is with
regret I search, and cannot find, in your not very short letter, any
declaration or intimation that you entertain any desire for the
preservation of the Federal Union.
Your obedient servant,
A. LINCOLN.
TO GENERAL FREMONT.
WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 2, 1861
MAJOR-GENERAL FREMONT.
MY DEAR SIR:--Two points in your proclamation of August 30 give me
some anxiety.
First. Should you shoot a man, according to the proclamation, the
Confederates would very certainly shoot our best men in their hands
in retaliation; and so, man for man, indefinitely. It is, therefore,
my order that you allow no man to be shot under the proclamation
without first having my approbation or consent.
Second. I think there is great danger that the closing paragraph, in
relation to the confiscation of property and the liberating slaves of
traitorous owners, will alarm our Southern Union friends and turn
them against us; perhaps ruin our rather fair prospect for Kentucky.
Allow me, therefore, to ask that you will, as of your own motion,
modify that paragraph so as to conform to the first and fourth
sections of the act of Congress entitled "An act to confiscate
property used for insurrectionary purposes," approved August 6, 1861,
and a copy of which act I herewith send you.
This letter is written in a spirit of caution, and not of censure. I
send it by special messenger, in order that it may certainly and
speedily reach you.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO GOVERNORS WASHBURN OF MAINE, FAIRBANKS OF VERMONT, BERRY
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ANDREW OF MASSACHUSETTS, BUCKINGHAM OF CONNECTICUT,
AND SPRAGUE OF RHODE ISLAND.
WAR DEPARTMENT, September 11, 1861.
General Butler proposes raising in New England six regiments, to be
recruited and commanded by himself, and to go on special service.
I shall be glad if you, as governor of ______, will answer by
telegraph if you consent.
A. LINCOLN.
TO GENERAL FREMONT.
WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 11, 1861
MAJOR-GENERAL JOHN C. FREMONT.
SIR:-Yours of the 8th, in answer to mine of the 2d instant, is just
received. Assuming that you, upon the ground, could better judge of
the necessities of your position than I could at this distance, on
seeing your proclamation of August30 I perceived no general objection
to it. The particular clause, however, in relation to the
confiscation of property and the liberation of slaves appeared to me
to be objectionable in its nonconformity to the act of Congress
passed the 6th of last August upon the same subjects; and hence I
wrote you, expressing my wish that that clause should be modified
accordingly. Your answer, just received, expresses the preference on
your part that I should make an open order for the modification,
which I very cheerfully do. It is therefore ordered that the said
clause of said proclamation be so modified, held, and construed as to
conform to, and not to transcend, the provisions on the same subject
contained in the act of Congress entitled "An act to confiscate
property used for insurrectionary purposes," approved August 6, 1861,
and that said act be published at length with this order.
Your obedient servant,
A. LINCOLN.
TO MRS. FREMONT.
WASHINGTON, D.C.,
September 12, 1861
Mrs. GENERAL FREMONT.
MY DEAR MADAM:--Your two notes of to-day are before me. I answered
the letter you bore me from General Fremont on yesterday, and not
hearing from you during the day, I sent the answer to him by mail.
It is not exactly correct, as you say you were told by the elder Mr.
Blair, to say that I sent Postmaster-General Blair to St. Louis to
examine into that department and report. Postmaster-General Blair
did go, with my approbation, to see and converse with General Fremont
as a friend. I do not feel authorized to furnish you with copies of
letters in my possession without the consent of the writers. No
impression has been made on my mind against the honor or integrity of
General Fremont, and I now enter my protest against being understood
as acting in any hostility toward him.
Your obedient servant,
A. LINCOLN.
TO JOSEPH HOLT,
EXECUTIVE MANSION, SEPTEMBER 12, 1861
HON. JOSEPH HOLT.
DEAR SIR:-Yours of this day in relation to the late proclamation of
General Fremont is received yesterday I addressed a letter to him, by
mail, on the same subject, and which is to be made public when he
receives it. I herewith send you a copy of that letter, which
perhaps shows my position as distinctly as any new one I could write.
I will thank you not to make it public until General Fremont shall
have had time to receive the original.
Your obedient servant,
A. LINCOLN.
TO GENERAL SCOTT
WASHINGTON, D.C., September 16, 1861.
DEAR SIR:--Since conversing with you I have concluded to request you
to frame an order for recruiting North Carolinians at Fort Hatteras.
I suggest it to be so framed as for us to accept a smaller force--
even a company--if we cannot get a regiment or more. What is
necessary to now say about officers you will judge. Governor Seward
says he has a nephew (Clarence A. Seward, I believe) who would be
willing to go and play colonel and assist in raising the force.
Still it is to be considered whether the North Carolinians will not
prefer officers of their own. I should expect they would.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO SECRETARY CAMERON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 18, 1861
HON. SECRETARY OF WAR.
MY DEAR SIR:--To guard against misunderstanding, I think fit to say
that the joint expedition of the army and navy agreed upon some time
since, and in which General T. W. Sherman was and is to bear a
conspicuous part, is in no wise to be abandoned, but must be ready to
move by the 1st of, or very early in, October. Let all preparations
go forward accordingly.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO GENERAL FREMONT,
WASHINGTON, SEPTEMBER 12, 1861
MAJOR-GENERAL FREMONT:
Governor Morton telegraphs as follows: "Colonel Lane, just arrived by
special train, represents Owensborough, forty miles above Evansville,
in possession of secessionists. Green River is navigable.
Owensborough must be seized. We want a gunboat sent up from Paducah
for that purpose." Send up the gunboat if, in your discretion, you
think it right. Perhaps you had better order those in charge of the
Ohio River to guard it vigilantly at all points.
A. LINCOLN.
To O. H. BROWNING.
(Private and Confidential)
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON
SEPTEMBER 22, 1861
HON. O. H. BROWNING.
MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 17th is just received; and coming from you,
I confess it astonishes me. That you should object to my adhering to
a law which you had assisted in making and presenting to me less than
a month before is odd enough. But this is a very small part.
General Fremont's proclamation as to confiscation of property and the
liberation of slaves is purely political and not within the range of
military law or necessity. If a commanding general finds a necessity
to seize the farm of a private owner for a pasture, an encampment, or
a fortification, he has the right to do so, and to so hold it as long
as the necessity lasts; and this is within military law, because
within military necessity. But to say the farm shall no longer
belong to the owner, or his heirs forever, and this as well when the
farm is not needed for military purposes as when it is, is purely
political, without the savor of military law about it. And the same
is true of slaves. If the general needs them, he can seize them and
use them; but when the need is past, it is not for him to fix their
permanent future condition. That must be settled according to laws
made by law-makers, and not by military proclamations. The
proclamation in the point in question is simply "dictatorship." It
assumes that the general may do anything he pleases confiscate the
lands and free the slaves of loyal people, as well as of disloyal
ones. And going the whole figure, I have no doubt, would be more
popular with some thoughtless people than that which has been done,
But I cannot assume this reckless position, nor allow others to
assume it on my responsibility.
You speak of it as being the only means of saving the government. On
the contrary, it is itself the surrender of the government. Can it
be pretended that it is any longer the Government of the United
States--any government of constitution and laws wherein a general or
a president may make permanent rules of property by proclamation? I
do not say Congress might not with propriety pass a law on the point,
just such as General Fremont proclaimed.
I do not say I might not, as a member of Congress, vote for it. What
I object to is, that I, as President, shall expressly or impliedly
seize and exercise the permanent legislative functions of the
government.
So much as to principle. Now as to policy. No doubt the thing was
popular in some quarters, and would have been more so if it had been
a general declaration of emancipation. The Kentucky Legislature
would not budge till that proclamation was modified; and General
Anderson telegraphed me that on the news of General Fremont having
actually issued deeds of manumission, a whole company of our
volunteers threw down their arms and disbanded. I was so assured as
to think it probable that the very arms we had furnished Kentucky
would be turned against us. I think to lose Kentucky is nearly the
same as to lose the whole game. Kentucky gone, we cannot hold
Missouri, nor, as I think, Maryland. These all against us, and the
job on our hands is too large for us. We would as well consent to
separation at once, including the surrender of this Capital. On the
contrary, if you will give up your restlessness for new positions,
and back me manfully on the grounds upon which you and other kind
friends gave me the election and have approved in my public
documents, we shall go through triumphantly. You must not understand
I took my course on the proclamation because of Kentucky. I took the
same ground in a private letter to General Fremont before I heard
from Kentucky.
You think I am inconsistent because I did not also forbid General
Fremont to shoot men under the proclamation. I understand that part
to be within military law, but I also think, and so privately wrote
General Fremont, that it is impolitic in this, that our adversaries
have the power, and will certainly exercise it, to shoot as many of
our men as we shoot of theirs. I did not say this in the public
letter, because it is a subject I prefer not to discuss in the
hearing of our enemies.
There has been no thought of removing General Fremont on any ground
connected with his proclamation, and if there has been any wish for
his removal on any ground, our mutual friend Sam. Glover can
probably tell you what it was. I hope no real necessity for it
exists on any ground.
Your friend, as ever,
A. LINCOLN
MEMORANDUM FOR A PLAN OF CAMPAIGN
[OCTOBER 1?] 1861
On or about the 5th of October (the exact date to be determined
hereafter) I wish a movement made to seize and hold a point on the
railroad connecting Virginia and Tennessee near the mountain-pass
called Cumberland Gap. That point is now guarded against us by
Zollicoffer, with 6000 or 8000 rebels at Barboursville Ky.,--say
twenty-five miles from the Gap, toward Lexington. We have a force
of 5000 or 6000 under General Thomas, at Camp Dick Robinson, about
twenty-five miles from Lexington and seventy-five from Zollicoffer's
camp, On the road between the two. There is not a railroad anywhere
between Lexington and the point to be seized, and along the whole
length of which the Union sentiment among the people largely
predominates. We have military possession of the railroad from
Cincinnati to Lexington, and from Louisville to Lexington, and some
home guards, under General Crittenden, are on the latter line. We
have possession of the railroad from Louisville to Nashville, Tenn.,
so far as Muldraugh's Hill, about forty miles, and the rebels have
possession of that road all south of there. At the Hill we have a
force of 8000, under General Sherman, and about an equal force of
rebels is a very short distance south, under General Buckner.
We have a large force at Paducah, and a smaller at Port Holt, both on
the Kentucky side, with some at Bird's Point, Cairo, Mound City,
Evansville, and New Albany, all on the other side, and all which,
with the gunboats on the river, are perhaps sufficient to guard the
Ohio from Louisville to its mouth.
About supplies of troops, my general idea is that all from Wisconsin,
Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, and Kansas, not now elsewhere,
be left to Fremont. All from Indiana and Michigan, not now
elsewhere, be sent to Anderson at Louisville. All from Ohio needed
in western Virginia be sent there, and any remainder be sent to
Mitchell at Cincinnati, for Anderson. All east of the mountains be
appropriated to McClellan and to the coast.
As to movements, my idea is that the one for the coast and that on
Cumberland Gap be simultaneous, and that in the meantime preparation,
vigilant watching, and the defensive only be acted upon; this,
however, not to apply to Fremont's operations in northern and middle
Missouri. That before these movements Thomas and Sherman shall
respectively watch but not attack Zollicoffer and Buckner. That when
the coast and Gap movements shall be ready Sherman is merely to stand
fast, while all at Cincinnati and all at Louisville, with all on the
line, concentrate rapidly at Lexington, and thence to Thomas's camp,
joining him, and the whole thence upon the Gap. It is for the
military men to decide whether they can find a pass through the
mountains at or near the Gap which cannot be defended by the enemy
with a greatly inferior force, and what is to be done in regard to
this.
The coast and Gap movements made, Generals McClellan and Fremont, in
their respective departments, will avail themselves of any advantages
the diversions may present.
[He was entirely unable to get this started, Sherman would have taken
an active part if given him, the others were too busy getting lines
of communication guarded--and discovering many "critical" supply
items that had not been sent them. Also the commanding general did
not like it. D.W.]
TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, October 4, 1861
HONORABLE SECRETARY OF STATE.
DEAR SIR:--Please see Mr. Walker, well vouched as a Union man and
son-in-law of Governor Morehead, and pleading for his release. I
understand the Kentucky arrests were not made by special direction
from here, and I am willing if you are that any of the parties may be
released when James Guthrie and James Speed think they should be.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO THE VICEROY OF EGYPT.
WASHINGTON, October 11, 1861.
GREAT AND GOOD FRIEND:--I have received from Mr. Thayer, Consul-
General of the United States at Alexandria, a full account of the
liberal, enlightened, and energetic proceedings which, on his
complaint, you have adopted in bringing to speedy and condign
punishment the parties, subjects of your Highness in Upper Egypt, who
were concerned in an act of criminal persecution against Faris, an
agent of certain Christian missionaries in Upper Egypt. I pray your
Highness to be assured that these proceedings, at once so prompt and
so just, will be regarded as a new and unmistakable proof equally of
your Highness's friendship for the United States and of the firmness,
integrity and wisdom, with which the government of your Highness is
conducted. Wishing you great prosperity and success, I am your
friend,
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
HIS HIGHNESS MOHAMMED SAID PACHA,
Viceroy of Egypt and its Dependencies, etc.
By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.
ORDER AUTHORIZING SUSPENSION OF THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS.
October 14 1861
LIEUTENANT-GENERAL WINFIELD SCOTT:
The military line of the United States for the suppression of the
insurrection may be extended so far as Bangor, in Maine. You and any
officer acting under your authority are hereby authorized to suspend
the writ of habeas corpus in any place between that place and the
city of Washington.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.
TO SECRETARY OF INTERIOR.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, October 14, 1861
HON. SEC. OF INTERIOR.
DEAR SIR:--How is this? I supposed I was appointing for register of
wills a citizen of this District. Now the commission comes to me
"Moses Kelly, of New Hampshire." I do not like this.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TWO SONS WHO WANT TO WORK
TO MAJOR RAMSEY.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, October 17, 1861
MAJOR RAMSEY.
MY DEAR SIR:--The lady bearer of this says she has two sons who want
to work. Set them at it if possible. Wanting to work is so rare a
want that it should be encouraged.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO GENERAL THOMAS W. SHERMAN.
WASHINGTON, October 18, 1861.
GENERAL THOMAS SHERMAN, Annapolis, Md.:
Your despatch of yesterday received and shown to General McClellan.
I have promised him not to direct his army here without his consent.
I do not think I shall come to Annapolis.
A. LINCOLN.
TO GENERAL CURTIS, WITH INCLOSURES.
WASHINGTON, October 24, 1861
BRIGADIER-GENERAL S. R. CURTIS.
MY DEAR SIR:--Herewith is a document--half letter, half order--which,
wishing you to see, but not to make public, I send unsealed. Please
read it and then inclose it to the officer who may be in command of
the Department of the West at the time it reaches him. I cannot now
know whether Fremont or Hunter will then be in command.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
WASHINGTON, October 24, 1861
BRIGADIER-GENERAL S. R. CURTIS.
DEAR SIR:--On receipt of this, with the accompanying inclosures, you
will take safe, certain, and suitable measures to have the inclosure
addressed to Major-General Fremont delivered to him with all
reasonable despatch, subject to these conditions only: that if, when
General Fremont shall be reached by the messenger--yourself or any
one sent by you--he shall then have, in personal command, fought and
won a battle, or shall then be actually in a battle, or shall then be
in the immediate presence of the enemy in expectation of a battle, it
is not to be delivered, but held for further orders. After, and not
till after, the delivery to General Fremont, let the inclosure
addressed to General Hunter be delivered to him.
Your obedient servant,
A. LINCOLN.
(General Orders No. 18.)
HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,
WASHINGTON, October 24, 1861
Major-General Fremont, of the United States Army, the present
commander of the Western Department of the same, will, on the receipt
of this order, call Major-General Hunter, of the United States
Volunteers, to relieve him temporarily in that command, when he
(Major-General Fremont) will report to general headquarters by letter
for further orders.
WINFIELD SCOTT.
By command: E. D. TOWNSEND, Assistant Adjutant-General.
WASHINGTON, October 24, 1861
TO THE COMMANDER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE WEST.
SIR:--The command of the Department of the West having devolved upon
you, I propose to offer you a few suggestions. Knowing how hazardous
it is to bind down a distant commander in the field to specific lines
and operations, as so much always depends on a knowledge of
localities and passing events, it is intended, therefore, to leave a
considerable margin for the exercise of your judgment and discretion.
The main rebel army (Price's) west of the Mississippi is believed to
have passed Dade County in full retreat upon northwestern Arkansas,
leaving Missouri almost freed from the enemy, excepting in the
southeast of the State. Assuming this basis of fact, it seems
desirable, as you are not likely to overtake Price, and are in danger
of making too long a line from your own base of supplies and
reinforcements, that you should give up the pursuit, halt your main
army, divide it into two corps of observation, one occupying Sedalia
and the other Rolla, the present termini of railroads; then recruit
the condition of both corps by re-establishing and improving their
discipline and instructions, perfecting their clothing and
equipments, and providing less uncomfortable quarters. Of course,
both railroads must be guarded and kept open, judiciously employing
just so much force as is necessary for this. From these two points,
Sedalia and Rolla, and especially in judicious cooperation with Lane
on the Kansas border, it would be so easy to concentrate and repel
any army of the enemy returning on Missouri from the southwest, that
it is not probable any such attempt will be made before or during the
approaching cold weather. Before spring the people of Missouri will
probably be in no favorable mood to renew for next year the troubles
which have so much afflicted and impoverished them during this. If
you adopt this line of policy, and if, as I anticipate, you will see
no enemy in great force approaching, you will have a surplus of force
which you can withdraw from these points and direct to others as may
be needed, the railroads furnishing ready means of reinforcing these
main points if occasion requires. Doubtless local uprisings will for
a time continue to occur, but these can be met by detachments and
local forces of our own, and will ere long tire out of themselves.
While, as stated in the beginning of the letter, a large discretion
must be and is left with yourself, I feel sure that an indefinite
pursuit of Price or an attempt by this long and circuitous route to
reach Memphis will be exhaustive beyond endurance, and will end in
the loss of the whole force engaged in it.
Your obedient servant,
A. LINCOLN.
ORDER RETIRING GENERAL SCOTT AND APPOINTING
GENERAL McCLELLAN HIS SUCCESSOR.
(General Orders, No.94.)
WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE
WASHINGTON, November 1, 1861
The following order from the President of the United States,
announcing the retirement from active command of the honored veteran
Lieutenant general Winfield Scott, will be read by the army with
profound regret:
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON.
November 1, 1861
On the 1st day of November, A.D. 1861, upon his own application to
the President of the United States, Brevet Lieutenant-General
Winfield Scott is ordered to be placed, and hereby is placed, upon
the list of retired officers of the army of the United States,
without reduction in his current pay, subsistence, or allowances.
The American people will hear with sadness and deep emotion that
General Scott has withdrawn from the active control of the army,
while the President and a unanimous Cabinet express their own and the
nation's sympathy in his personal affliction and their profound sense
of the important public services rendered by him to his country
during his long and brilliant career, among which will ever be
gratefully distinguished his faithful devotion to the Constitution,
the Union, and the flag when assailed by parricidal rebellion.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
The President is pleased to direct that Major general George B.
McClellan assume the command of the army of the United States. The
headquarters of the army will be established in the city of
Washington. All communications intended for the commanding general
will hereafter be addressed direct to the adjutant-general. The
duplicate returns, orders, and other papers heretofore sent to the
assistant adjutant-general, headquarters of the army, will be
discontinued.
By order of the Secretary of War:
L. THOMAS, Adjutant General.
ORDER APPROVING THE PLAN OF GOVERNOR GAMBLE
OF MISSOURI.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON,
November 5, 1861.
The Governor of the State of Missouri, acting under the direction of
the convention of that State, proposes to the Government of the
United States that he will raise a military force to serve within the
State as State militia during the war there, to cooperate with the
troops in the service of the United States in repelling the invasion
of the State and suppressing rebellion therein; the said State
militia to be embodied and to be held in the camp and in the field,
drilled, disciplined, and governed according to the Army Regulations
and subject to the Articles of War; the said State militia not to be
ordered out of the State except for the immediate defense of the
State of Missouri, but to co-operate with the troops in the service
of the United States in military operations within the State or
necessary to its defense, and when officers of the State militia act
with officers in the service of the United States of the same grade
the officers of the United States service shall command the combined
force; the State militia to be armed, equipped, clothed, subsisted,
transported, and paid by the United States during such time as they
shall be actually engaged as an embodied military force in service in
accordance with regulations of the United States Army or general
orders as issued from time to time.
In order that the Treasury of the United States may not be burdened
with the pay of unnecessary officers, the governor proposes that,
although the State law requires him to appoint upon the general staff
an adjutant-general, a commissary-general, an inspector-general, a
quartermaster-general, a paymaster-general, and a surgeon-general,
each with the rank of colonel of cavalry, yet he proposes that the
Government of the United States pay only the adjutant-general, the
quartermaster-general, and inspector-general, their services being
necessary in the relations which would exist between the State
militia and the United States. The governor further proposes that
while he is allowed by the State law to appoint aides-de-camp to the
governor at his discretion, with the rank of colonel, three only
shall be reported to the United States for payment. He also proposes
that the State militia shall be commanded by a single major-general
and by such number of brigadier-generals as shall allow one for a
brigade of not less than four regiments, and that no greater number
of staff officers shall be appointed for regimental, brigade, and
division duties than as provided for in the act of Congress of the
22d July, 1861; and that, whatever be the rank of such officers as
fixed by the law of the State, the compensation that they shall
receive from the United States shall only be that which belongs to
the rank given by said act of Congress to officers in the United
States service performing the same duties.
The field officers of a regiment in the State militia are one
colonel, one lieutenant-colonel, and one major, and the company
officers are a captain, a first lieutenant, and a second lieutenant.
The governor proposes that, as the money to be disbursed is the money
of the United States, such staff officers in the service of the
United States as may be necessary to act as disbursing officers for
the State militia shall be assigned by the War Department for that
duty; or, if such cannot be spared from their present duty, he will
appoint such persons disbursing officers for the State militia as the
President of the United States may designate. Such regulations as
may be required, in the judgment of the President, to insure
regularity of returns and to protect the United States from any
fraudulent practices shall be observed and obeyed by all in office in
the State militia.
The above propositions are accepted on the part of the United States,
and the Secretary of War is directed to make the necessary orders
upon the Ordnance, Quartermaster's, Commissary, Pay, and Medical
departments to carry this agreement into effect. He will cause the
necessary staff officers in the United States service to be detailed
for duty in connection with the Missouri State militia, and will
order them to make the necessary provision in their respective
offices for fulfilling this agreement. All requisitions upon the
different officers of the United States under this agreement to be
made in substance in the same mode for the Missouri State militia as
similar requisitions are made for troops in the service of the United
States; and the Secretary of War will cause any additional
regulations that may be necessary to insure regularity and economy in
carrying this agreement into effect to be adopted and communicated to
the Governor of Missouri for the government of the Missouri State
militia.
[Indorsement.]
November 6, 1861.
This plan approved, with the modification that the governor
stipulates that when he commissions a major-general of militia it
shall be the same person at the time in command of the United States
Department of the West; and in case the United States shall change
such commander of the department, he (the governor) will revoke the
State commission given to the person relieved and give one to the
person substituted to the United States command of said department.
A. LINCOLN.
REPLY TO THE MINISTER FROM SWEDEN.
November 8, 1861.
SIR:--I receive with great pleasure a Minister from Sweden. That
pleasure is enhanced by the information which preceded your arrival
here, that his Majesty, your sovereign, had selected you to fill the
mission upon the grounds of your derivation from an ancestral stock
identified with the most glorious era of your country's noble
history, and your own eminent social and political standing in
Sweden. This country, sir, maintains, and means to maintain, the
rights of human nature, and the capacity of men for self-government.
The history of Sweden proves that this is the faith of the people of
Sweden, and we know that it is the faith and practice of their
respected sovereign. Rest assured, therefore, that we shall be found
always just and paternal in our transactions with your government,
and that nothing will be omitted on my part to make your residence in
this capital agreeable to yourself and satisfactory to your
government.
INDORSEMENT AUTHORIZING MARTIAL LAW IN SAINT LOUIS.
St. Louis, November 20, 1861.
(Received Nov. 20th.)
GENERAL McCLELLAN,
For the President of the United States.
No written authority is found here to declare and enforce martial law
in this department. Please send me such written authority and
telegraph me that it has been sent by mail.
H. W. HALLECK,
Major-General.
[Indorsement.]
November 21, 1861.
If General McClellan and General Halleck deem it necessary to declare
and maintain martial law in Saint Louis, the same is hereby
authorized.
A. LINCOLN.
OFFER TO COOPERATE AND GIVE SPECIAL LINE OF INFORMATION TO HORACE
GREELEY
TO GOVERNOR WALKER.
WASHINGTON, November 21, 1861
DEAR GOVERNOR:--I have thought over the interview which Mr. Gilmore
has had with Mr. Greeley, and the proposal that Greeley has made to
Gilmore, namely, that he [Gilmore] shall communicate to him [Greeley]
all that he learns from you of the inner workings of the
administration, in return for his [Greeley's] giving such aid as he
can to the new magazine, and allowing you [Walker] from time to time
the use of his [Greeley's] columns when it is desirable to feel of,
or forestall, public opinion on important subjects. The arrangement
meets my unqualified approval, and I shall further it to the extent
of my ability, by opening to you--as I do now--fully the policy of
the Government,--its present views and future intentions when formed,
giving you permission to communicate them to Gilmore for Greeley; and
in case you go to Europe I will give these things direct to Gilmore.
But all this must be on the express and explicit understanding that
the fact of these communications coming from me shall be absolutely
confidential,--not to be disclosed by Greeley to his nearest friend,
or any of his subordinates. He will be, in effect, my mouthpiece,
but I must not be known to be the speaker.
I need not tell you that I have the highest confidence in Mr.
Greeley. He is a great power. Having him firmly behind me will be
as helpful to me as an army of one hundred thousand men.
This was to be most severely regretted, when Greeley became a traitor
to the cause, editorialized for compromise and separation--and
promoted McClellan as Democratic candidate for the Presidency.
That he has ever kicked the traces has been owing to his not being
fully informed. Tell Gilmore to say to him that, if he ever objects
to my policy, I shall be glad to have him state to me his views
frankly and fully. I shall adopt his if I can. If I cannot, I will
at least tell him why. He and I should stand together, and let no
minor differences come between us; for we both seek one end, which is
the saving of our country. Now, Governor, this is a longer letter
than I have written in a month,--longer than I would have written for
any other man than Horace Greeley.
Your friend, truly,
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
P. S.--The sooner Gilmore sees Greeley the better, as you may before
long think it wise to ventilate our policy on the Trent affair.
ORDER AUTHORIZING GENERAL HALLECK TO SUSPEND
THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS,
DECEMBER 2, 1861.
MAJOR-GENERAL H. W. HALLECK,
Commanding in the Department of Missouri.
GENERAL:--As an insurrection exists in the United States, and is in
arms in the State of Missouri, you are hereby authorized and
empowered to suspend the writ of habeas corpus within the limits of
the military division under your command, and to exercise martial law
as you find it necessary in your discretion to secure the public
safety and the authority of the United States.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the
seal of the United States to be affixed at Washington, this second
day of December, A.D. 1861.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.
ANNUAL MESSAGE TO CONGRESS.
WASHINGTON, 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 most 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 unfortunate
and injurious 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 more durable peace
and a more extensive, valuable, and reliable commerce than can the
same nation broken into hostile fragments.
It is not my purpose to review our discussions with foreign states,
because, whatever might be their wishes or dispositions, the
integrity of our country and the stability of our government mainly
depend not upon them, but on the loyalty, virtue, patriotism, and
intelligence of the American people. The correspondence itself, with
the usual reservations, is herewith submitted.
I venture to hope it will appear that we have practiced prudence and
liberality toward foreign powers, averting causes of irritation and
with firmness maintaining our own rights and honor.
Since, however, it is apparent that here, as in every other state,
foreign dangers necessarily attend domestic difficulties, I recommend
that adequate and ample measures be adopted for maintaining the
public defenses on every side. While under this general
recommendation provision for defending our seacoast line readily
occurs to the mind, I also in the same connection ask the attention
of Congress to our great lakes and rivers. It is believed that some
fortifications and depots of arms and munitions, with harbor and
navigation improvements, all at well-selected points upon these,
would be of great importance to the national defense and preservation
I ask attention to the views of the Secretary of War, expressed in
his report, upon the same general subject.
I deem it of importance that the loyal regions of east Tennessee and
western North Carolina should be connected with Kentucky and other
faithful parts of the Union by rail-road. I therefore recommend, as
a military measure, that Congress provide for the construction of
such rail-road as speedily as possible. Kentucky will no doubt
co-operate, and through her Legislature make the most judicious
selection of a line. The northern terminus must connect with some
existing railroad, and whether the route shall be from Lexington or
Nicholasville to the Cumberland Gap, or from Lebanon to the Tennessee
line, in the direction of Knoxville, or on some still different line,
can easily be determined. Kentucky and the General Government
co-operating, the work can be completed in a very short time, and
when done it will be not only of vast present usefulness but also a
valuable permanent improvement, worth its cost in all the future.
Some treaties, designed chiefly for the interests of commerce, and
having no grave political importance, have been negotiated, and will
be submitted to the Senate for their consideration.
Although we have failed to induce some of the commercial powers to
adopt a desirable melioration of the rigor of maritime war, we have
removed all obstructions from the way of this humane reform except
such as are merely of temporary and accidental occurrence.
I invite your attention to the correspondence between her Britannic
Majesty's minister accredited to this government and the Secretary of
State relative to the detention of the British ship Perthshire in
June last by the United States steamer Massachusetts for a supposed
breach of the blockade. As this detention was occasioned by an
obvious misapprehension of the facts, and as justice requires that we
should commit no belligerent act not founded in strict right as
sanctioned by public law, I recommend that an appropriation be made
to satisfy the reasonable demand of the owners of the vessel for her
detention.
I repeat the recommendation of my predecessor in his annual message
to Congress in December last in regard to the disposition of the
surplus which will probably remain after satisfying the claims of
American citizens against China, pursuant to the awards of the
commissioners under the act of the 3d of March, 1859. If, however,
it should not be deemed advisable to carry that recommendation into
effect, I would suggest that authority be given for investing the
principal, or the proceeds of the surplus referred to, in good
securities, with a view to the satisfaction of such other just claims
of our citizens against China as are not unlikely to arise hereafter
in the course of our extensive trade with that empire.
By the act of the 5th of August last Congress authorized the
President to instruct the commanders of suitable vessels to defend
themselves against and to capture pirates. His authority has been
exercised in a single instance only. For the more effectual
protection of our extensive and valuable commerce in the Eastern seas
especially, it seems to me that it would also be advisable to
authorize the commanders of sailing vessels to recapture any prizes
which pirates may make of United States vessels and their cargoes,
and the consular courts now established by law in Eastern countries
to adjudicate the cases in the event that this should not be objected
to by the local authorities.
If any good reason exists why we should persevere longer in
withholding our recognition of the independence and sovereignty of
Haiti and Liberia, I am unable to discern it. Unwilling, however, to
inaugurate a novel policy in regard to them without the approbation
of Congress, I submit for your consideration the expediency of an
appropriation for maintaining a charge d'affaires near each of those
new States. It does not admit of doubt that important commercial
advantages might be secured by favorable treaties with them.
The operations of the treasury during the period which has elapsed
since your adjournment have been conducted with signal success. The
patriotism of the people has placed at the disposal of the government
the large means demanded by the public exigencies. Much of the
national loan has been taken by citizens of the industrial classes,
whose confidence in their country's faith and zeal for their
country's deliverance from present peril have induced them to
contribute to the support of the government the whole of their
limited acquisitions. This fact imposes peculiar obligations to
economy in disbursement and energy in action.
The revenue from all sources, including loans, for the financial year
ending on the 30th of June, 1861, was $86,835,900.27, and the
expenditures for the same period, including payments on account of
the public debt, were $84,578,834.47, leaving a balance in the
treasury on the 1st of July of $2,257,065.80. For the first quarter
of the financial year ending on the 3oth of September, 1861, the
receipts from all sources, including the balance of the 1st of July,
were $102,532,509.27, and the expenses $98,239733.09, leaving a
balance on the 1st of October, 1861, of $4,292,776.18.
Estimates for the remaining three quarters of the year and for the
financial year 1863, together with his views of ways and means for
meeting the demands contemplated by them, will be submitted to
Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury. It is gratifying to know
that the expenditures made necessary by the rebellion are not beyond
the resources of the loyal people, and to believe that the same
patriotism which has thus far sustained the government will continue
to sustain it till peace and union shall again bless the land.
I respectfully refer to the report of the Secretary of War for
information respecting the numerical strength of the army and for
recommendations having in view an increase of its efficiency and the
well-being of the various branches of the service intrusted to his
care. It is gratifying to know that the patriotism of the people has
proved equal to the occasion, and that the number of troops tendered
greatly exceeds the force which Congress authorized me to call into
the field.
I refer with pleasure to those portions of his report which make
allusion to the creditable degree of discipline already attained by
our troops and to the excellent sanitary condition of the entire
army.
The recommendation of the Secretary for an organization of the
militia upon a uniform basis is a subject of vital importance to the
future safety of the country, and is commended to the serious
attention of Congress.
The large addition to the regular army, in connection with the
defection that has so considerably diminished the number of its
officers, gives peculiar importance to his recommendation for
increasing the corps of cadets to the greatest capacity of the
Military Academy.
By mere omission, I presume, Congress has failed to provide chaplains
for hospitals occupied by volunteers. This subject was brought to my
notice, and I was induced to draw up the form of a letter, one copy
of which, properly addressed, has been delivered to each of the
persons, and at the dates respectively named and stated in a
schedule, containing also the form of the letter, marked A, and
herewith transmitted.
These gentlemen, I understand, entered upon the duties designated at
the times respectively stated in the schedule, and have labored
faithfully therein ever since. I therefore recommend that they be
compensated at the same rate as chaplains in the army. I further
suggest that general provision be made for chaplains to serve at
hospitals, as well as with regiments.
The report of the Secretary of the Navy presents in detail the
operations of that branch of the service, the activity and energy
which have characterized its administration, and the results of
measures to increase its efficiency and power such have been the
additions, by construction and purchase, that it may almost be said a
navy has been created and brought into service since our difficulties
commenced.
Besides blockading our extensive coast, squadrons larger than ever
before assembled under our flag have been put afloat and performed
deeds which have increased our naval renown.
I would invite special attention to the recommendation of the
Secretary for a more perfect organization of the navy by introducing
additional grades in the service.
The present organization is defective and unsatisfactory, and the
suggestions submitted by the department will, it is believed, if
adopted, obviate the difficulties alluded to, promote harmony, and
increase the efficiency of the navy.
There are three vacancies on the bench of the Supreme Court--two by
the decease of Justices Daniel and McLean and one by the resignation
of Justice Campbell. I have so far forborne making nominations to
fill these vacancies for reasons which I will now state. Two of the
outgoing judges resided within the States now overrun by revolt, so
that if successors were appointed in the same localities they could
not now serve upon their circuits; and many of the most competent men
there probably would not take the personal hazard of accepting to
serve, even here, upon the Supreme bench. I have been unwilling to
throw all the appointments north-ward, thus disabling myself from
doing justice to the South on the return of peace; although I may
remark that to transfer to the North one which has heretofore been in
the South would not, with reference to territory and population, be
unjust.
During the long and brilliant judicial career of Judge McLean his
circuit grew into an empire-altogether too large for any one judge to
give the courts therein more than a nominal attendance--rising in
population from 1,470,018 in 1830 to 6,151,405 in 1860.
Besides this, the country generally has outgrown our present judicial
system. If uniformity was at all intended, the system requires that
all the States shall be accommodated with circuit courts, attended by
Supreme judges, while, in fact, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas,
Florida, Texas, California, and Oregon have never had any such
courts. Nor can this well be remedied without a change in the
system, because the adding of judges to the Supreme Court, enough for
the accommodation of all parts of the country with circuit courts,
would create a court altogether too numerous for a judicial body of
any sort. And the evil, if it be one, will increase as new States
come into the Union. Circuit courts are useful or they are not
useful. If useful, no State should be denied them; if not useful, no
State should have them. Let them be provided for all or abolished as
to all.
Three modifications occur to me, either of which, I think, would be
an improvement upon our present system. Let the Supreme Court be of
convenient number in every event; then, first, let the whole country
be divided into circuits of convenient size, the Supreme judges to
serve in a number of them corresponding to their own number, and
independent circuit judges be provided for all the rest; or,
secondly, let the Supreme judges be relieved from circuit duties and
circuit judges provided for all the circuits; or, thirdly, dispense
with circuit courts altogether, leaving the judicial functions wholly
to the district courts and an independent Supreme Court.
I respectfully recommend to the consideration of Congress the present
condition of the statute laws, with the hope that Congress will be
able to find an easy remedy for many of the inconveniences and evils
which constantly embarrass those engaged in the practical
administration of them. Since the Organization of the government,
Congress has enacted some 5000 acts and joint resolutions, which fill
more than 6000 closely printed pages and are scattered through many
volumes. Many of these acts have been drawn in haste and without
sufficient caution, so that their provisions are often obscure in
themselves or in conflict with each other, or at least so doubtful as
to render it very difficult for even the best-informed persons to
ascertain precisely what the statute law really is.
It seems to me very important that the statute laws should be made as
plain and intelligible as possible, and be reduced to as small a
compass as may consist with the fullness and precision of the will of
the Legislature and the perspicuity of its language. This well done
would, I think, greatly facilitate the labors of those whose duty it
is to assist in the administration of the laws, and would be a
lasting benefit to the people, by placing before them in a more
accessible and intelligible form the laws which so deeply concern
their interests arid their duties.
I am informed by some whose opinions I respect that all the acts of
Congress now in force and of a permanent and general nature might be
revised and rewritten so as to be embraced in one volume (or at most
two volumes) of ordinary and convenient size; and I respectfully
recommend to Congress to consider of the subject, and if my
suggestion be approved to devise such plan as to their wisdom shall
seem most proper for the attainment of the end proposed.
One of the unavoidable consequences of the present insurrection is
the entire suppression in many places of all the ordinary means of
administering civil justice by the officers and in the forms of
existing law. This is the case, in whole or in part, in all the
insurgent States; and as our armies advance upon and take possession
of parts of those States the practical evil becomes more apparent.
There are no courts or officers to whom the citizens of other States
may apply for the enforcement of their lawful claims against citizens
of the insurgent States, and there is a vast amount of debt
constituting such claims. Some have estimated it as high as
$200,000,000, due in large part from insurgents in open rebellion to
loyal citizens who are even now making great sacrifices in the
discharge of their patriotic duty to support the government.
Under these circumstances I have been urgently solicited to
establish, by military power, courts to administer summary justice in
such cases. I have thus far declined to do it, not because I had any
doubt that the end proposed--the collection of the debts--was just
and right in itself, but because I have been unwilling to go beyond
the pressure of necessity in the unusual exercise of power. But the
powers of Congress, I suppose, are equal to the anomalous occasion,
and therefore I refer the whole matter to Congress, with the hope
that a plan maybe devised for the administration of justice in all
such parts of the insurgent States and Territories as may be under
the control of this government, whether by a voluntary return to
allegiance and order or by the power of our arms; this, however, not
to be a permanent institution, but a temporary substitute, and to
cease as soon as the ordinary courts can be reestablished in peace.
It is important that some more convenient means should be provided,
if possible, for the adjustment of claims against the government,
especially in view of their increased number by reason of the war.
It is as much the duty of government to render prompt justice against
itself in favor of citizens as it is to administer the same between
private individuals. The investigation and adjudication of claims in
their nature belong to the judicial department. Besides, it is
apparent that the attention of Congress will be more than usually
engaged for some time to come with great national questions. It was
intended by the organization of the Court of Claims mainly to remove
this branch of business from the halls of Congress; but, while the
court has proved to be an effective and valuable means of
investigation, it in great degree fails to effect the object of its
creation for want of power to make its judgments final.
Fully aware of the delicacy, not to say the danger of the subject, I
commend to your careful consideration whether this power of making
judgments final may not properly be given to the court, reserving the
right of appeal on questions of law to the Supreme Court, with such
other provisions as experience may have shown to be necessary.
I ask attention to the report of the Postmaster general, the
following being a summary statement of the condition of the
department:
The revenue from all sources during the fiscal year ending June 30,
1861, including the annual permanent appropriation of $700,000 for
the transportation of "free mail matter," was $9,049,296.40, being
about 2 per cent. less than the revenue for 1860.
The expenditures were $13,606,759.11, showing a decrease of more than
8 per cent. as compared with those of the previous year and leaving
an excess of expenditure over the revenue for the last fiscal year
of $4,557,462.71.
The gross revenue for the year ending June 30, 1863, is estimated at
an increase of 4 per cent. on that of 1861, making $8,683,000, to
which should be added the earnings of the department in carrying free
matter, viz., $700,000, making $9,383,000.
The total expenditures for 1863 are estimated at $12,528,000, leaving
an estimated deficiency of $3,145,000 to be supplied from the
treasury in addition to the permanent appropriation.
The present insurrection shows, I think, that the extension of this
District across the Potomac River at the time of establishing the
capital here was eminently wise, and consequently that the
relinquishment of that portion of it which lies within the State of
Virginia was unwise and dangerous. I submit for your consideration
the expediency of regaining that part of the District and the
restoration of the original boundaries thereof through negotiations
with the State of Virginia.
The report of the Secretary of the Interior, with the accompanying
documents, exhibits the condition of the several branches of the
public business pertaining to that department. The depressing
influences of the insurrection have been specially felt in the
operations of the Patent and General Land Offices. The cash receipts
from the sales of public lands during the past year have exceeded the
expenses of our land system only about $200,000. The sales have been
entirely suspended in the Southern States, while the interruptions to
the business of the country and the diversion of large numbers of men
from labor to military service have obstructed settlements in the new
States and Territories of the Northwest.
The receipts of the Patent Office have declined in nine months about
$100,000.00 rendering a large reduction of the force employed
necessary to make it self-sustaining.
The demands upon the Pension Office will be largely increased by the
insurrection. Numerous applications for pensions, based upon the
casualties of the existing war, have already been made. There is
reason to believe that many who are now upon the pension rolls and in
receipt of the bounty of the government are in the ranks of the
insurgent army or giving them aid and comfort. The Secretary of the
Interior has directed a suspension of the payment of the pensions of
such persons upon proof of their disloyalty. I recommend that
Congress authorize that officer to cause the names of such persons to
be stricken from the pension rolls.
The relations of the government with the Indian tribes have been
greatly disturbed by the insurrection, especially in the southern
superintendency and in that of New Mexico. The Indian country south
of Kansas is in the possession of insurgents from Texas and Arkansas.
The agents of the United States appointed since the 4th of March for
this superintendency have been unable to reach their posts, while the
most of those who were in office before that time have espoused the
insurrectionary cause, and assume to exercise the powers of agents by
virtue of commissions from the insurrectionists. It has been stated
in the public press that a portion of those Indians have been
organized as a military force and are attached to the army of the
insurgents. Although the government has no official information upon
this subject, letters have been written to the Commissioner of Indian
Affairs by several prominent chiefs giving assurance of their loyalty
to the United States and expressing a wish for the presence of
Federal troops to protect them. It is believed that upon the
repossession of the country by the Federal forces the Indians will
readily cease all hostile demonstrations and resume their former
relations to the government.
Agriculture, confessedly the largest interest of the nation, has not
a department nor a bureau, but a clerkship only, assigned to it in
the government. While it is fortunate that this great interest is so
independent in its nature as not to have demanded and extorted more
from the government, I respectfully ask Congress to consider whether
something more cannot be given voluntarily with general advantage.
Annual reports exhibiting the condition of our agriculture, commerce,
and manufactures would present a fund of information of great
practical value to the country. While I make no suggestion as to
details, I venture the opinion that an agricultural and statistical
bureau might profitably be organized.
The execution of the laws for the suppression of the African slave
trade has been confided to the Department of the Interior. It is a
subject of gratulation that the efforts which have been made for the
suppression of this inhuman traffic have been recently attended with
unusual success. Five vessels being fitted out for the slave trade
have been seized and condemned. Two mates of vessels engaged in the
trade and one person in equipping a vessel as a slaver have been
convicted and subjected to the penalty of fine and imprisonment, and
one captain, taken with a cargo of Africans on board his vessel, has
been convicted of the highest grade of offense under our laws, the
punishment of which is death.
The Territories of Colorado, Dakota, and Nevada, created by the last
Congress, have been organized, and civil administration has been
inaugurated therein under auspices especially gratifying when it is
considered that the leaven of treason was found existing in some of
these new countries when the Federal officers arrived there.
The abundant natural resources of these Territories, with the
security and protection afforded by organized government, will
doubtless invite to them a large immigration when peace shall restore
the business of the country to its accustomed channels. I submit the
resolutions of the Legislature of Colorado, which evidence the
patriotic spirit of the people of the Territory. So far the
authority of the United States has been upheld in all the
Territories, as it is hoped it will be in the future. I commend
their interests and defense to the enlightened and generous care of
Congress.
I recommend to the favorable consideration of Congress the interests
of the District of Columbia. The insurrection has been the cause of
much suffering and sacrifice to its inhabitants, and as they have no
representative in Congress that body should not overlook their just
claims upon the government.
At your late session a joint resolution was adopted authorizing the
President to take measures for facilitating a proper representation
of the industrial interests of the United States at the exhibition of
the industry of all nations to be holden at London in the year 1862.
I regret to say I have been unable to give personal attention to this
subject--a subject at once so interesting in itself and so
extensively and intimately connected with the material prosperity of
the world. Through the Secretaries of State and of the Interior a
plan or system has been devised and partly matured, and which will be
laid before you.
Under and by virtue of the act of Congress entitled "An act to
confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes," approved
August 6, 1861, the legal claims of certain persons to the labor and
service of certain other persons have become forfeited, and numbers
of the latter thus liberated are already dependent on the United
States, and must be provided for in some way. Besides this, it is
not impossible that some of the States will pass similar enactments
for their own benefit respectively, and by operation of which persons
of the same class will be thrown upon them for disposal. In such
case I recommend that Congress provide for accepting such persons
from such States, according to some mode of valuation, in lieu, pro
tanto, of direct taxes, or upon some other plan to be agreed on with
such States respectively; that such persons, on such acceptance by
the General Government, be at once deemed free, and that in any event
steps be taken for colonizing both classes (or the one first
mentioned if the other shall not be brought into existence) at some
place or places in a climate congenial to them. It might be well to
consider, too, whether the free colored people already in the United
States could not, so far as individuals may desire, be included in
such colonization.
To carry out the plan of colonization may involve the acquiring of
territory, and also the appropriation of money beyond that to be
expended in the territorial acquisition. Having practised the
acquisition of territory for nearly sixty years, the question of
constitutional power to do so is no longer an open one with us. The
power was questioned at first by Mr. Jefferson, who, however, in the
purchase of Louisiana, yielded his scruples on the plea of great
expediency. If it be said that the only legitimate object of
acquiring territory is to furnish homes for white men, this measure
effects that object, for emigration of colored men leaves additional
room for white men remaining or coming here. Mr. Jefferson, however,
placed the importance of procuring Louisiana more on political and
commercial grounds than on providing room for population.
On this whole proposition, including the appropriation of money with
the acquisition of territory, does not the expediency amount to
absolute necessity--that without which the government itself cannot
be perpetuated?
The war continues. In considering the policy to be adopted for
suppressing the insurrection I have been anxious and careful that the
inevitable conflict for this purpose shall not degenerate into a
violent and remorseless revolutionary struggle. I have therefore in
every case thought it proper to keep the integrity of the Union
prominent as the primary object of the contest on our part, leaving
all questions which are not of vital military importance to the more
deliberate action of the Legislature.
In the exercise of my best discretion I have adhered to the blockade
of the ports held by the insurgents, instead of putting in force by
proclamation the law of Congress enacted at the late session for
closing those ports.
So also, obeying the dictates of prudence, as well as the obligations
of law, instead of transcending I have adhered to the act of Congress
to confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes. If a new
law upon the same subject shall be proposed, its propriety will be
duly considered. The Union must be preserved, and hence all
indispensable means must be employed. We should not be in haste to
determine that radical and extreme measures, which may reach the
loyal as well as the disloyal, are indispensable.
The inaugural address at the beginning of the Administration and the
message to Congress at the late special session were both mainly
devoted to topics domestic controversy out of which the insurrection
and consequent war have sprung. Nothing now occurs to add or
subtract to or from the principles or general purposes stated and
expressed in those documents.
The last ray of hope for preserving the Union peaceably expired at
the assault upon Fort Sumter, and a general review of what has
occurred since may not be unprofitable. What was painfully uncertain
then is much better defined and more distinct now, and the progress
of events is plainly in the right direction. The insurgents
confidently claimed a strong support from north of Mason and Dixon's
line, and the friends of the Union were not free from apprehension on
the point. This, however, was soon settled definitely, and on the
right side. South of the line noble little Delaware led off right
from the first. Maryland was made to seem against the Union. Our
soldiers were assaulted, bridges were burned, and railroads torn up
within her limits, and we were many days at one time without the
ability to bring a single regiment over her soil to the capital. Now
her bridges and railroads are repaired and open to the government;
she already gives seven regiments to the cause of the Union, and none
to the enemy; and her people, at a regular election, have sustained
the Union by a larger majority and a larger aggregate vote than they
ever before gave to any candidate or any question. Kentucky, too,
for some time in doubt, is now decidedly and, I think, unchangeably
ranged on the side of the Union. Missouri is comparatively quiet,
and, I believe, can, not again be overrun by the insurrectionists.
These three States of Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri, neither of
which would promise a single soldier at first, have now an aggregate
of not less than forty thousand in the field for the Union, while of
their citizens certainly not more than a third of that number, and
they of doubtful whereabouts and doubtful existence, are in arms
against us. After a somewhat bloody struggle of months, winter
closes on the Union people of western Virginia, leaving them masters
of their own country.
An insurgent force of about fifteen hundred, for months dominating
the narrow peninsular region constituting the counties of Accomac and
Northampton, and known as Eastern Shore of Virginia, together with
some contiguous parts of Maryland, have laid down their arms, and the
people there have renewed their allegiance to and accepted the
protection of the old flag. This leaves no armed insurrectionist
north of the Potomac or east of the Chesapeake.
Also we have obtained a footing at each of the isolated points on the
southern coast of Hatteras, Port Royal, Tybee Island (near Savannah),
and Ship Island; and we likewise have some general accounts of
popular movements in behalf of the Union in North Carolina and
Tennessee.
These things demonstrate that the cause of the Union is advancing
steadily and certainly southward.
Since your last adjournment Lieutenant-General Scott has retired from
the head of the army. During his long life the nation has not been
unmindful of his merit; yet on calling to mind how faithfully, ably,
and brilliantly he has served the country, from a time far back in
our history, when few of the now living had been born, and
thenceforward continually, I cannot but think we are still his
debtors. I submit, therefore, for your consideration what further
mark of recognition is due to him, and to ourselves as a grateful
people.
With the retirement of General Scott came the Executive duty of
appointing in his stead a general-in-chief of the army. It is a
fortunate circumstance that neither in council nor country was there,
so far as I know, any difference of opinion as to the proper person
to be selected. The retiring chief repeatedly expressed his judgment
in favor of General McClellan for the position, and in this the
nation seemed to give a unanimous concurrence. The designation of
General McClellan is therefore in considerable degree the selection
of the country as well as of the Executive, and hence there is better
reason to hope there will be given him the confidence and cordial
support thus by fair implication promised, and without which he
cannot with so full efficiency serve the country.
It has been said that one bad general is better than two good ones,
and the saying is true if taken to mean no more than that an army is
better directed by a single mind, though inferior, than by two
superior ones at variance and cross-purposes with each other.
And the same is true in all joint operations wherein those engaged
can have none but a common end in view and can differ only as to the
choice of means. In a storm at sea no one on hoard can wish the ship
to sink, and yet not unfrequently all go down together because too
many will direct and no single mind can be allowed to control.
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 labored
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 favor 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, labor in the structure of government. It
is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital;
that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by
the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next
considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and
thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive
them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is
naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or
what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once
a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.
Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed,
nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the
condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and
all inferences from them are groundless.
Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the
fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first
existed. Labor 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 labor and capital
producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole
labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own
capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital
hire or buy another few to labor 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 colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a
large 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 favors of capital on the one hand nor of
hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a
considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital;
that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others
to labor 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 laborer being fixed to that condition for
life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years
back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless
beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with
which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors 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.
>From the first taking of our national census to the last are seventy
years, and we find our population at the end of the period eight
times as great as it was at the beginning. The increase of those
other things which men deem desirable has been even greater. We thus
have at one view what the popular principle, applied to government
through the machinery of the States and the Union, has produced in a
given time, and also what if firmly maintained it promises for the
future. There are already among us those who if the Union be
preserved will live to see it contain 200,000,000. The struggle of
to-day is not altogether for to-day; it is for a vast future also.
With a reliance on Providence all the more firm and earnest, let us
proceed in the great task which events have devolved upon us.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
MESSAGE TO CONGRESS.
WASHINGTON, December 20, 1861.
TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I transmit to Congress a letter from the secretary of the executive
committee of the commission appointed to represent the interests of
those American citizens who may desire to become exhibitors at the
industrial exhibition to be held in London in 1862, and a memorial of
that commission, with a report of the executive committee thereof and
copies of circulars announcing the decisions of Her Majesty's
commissioners in London, giving directions to be observed in regard
to articles intended for exhibition, and also of circular forms of
application, demands for space, approvals, etc., according to the
rules prescribed by the British commissioners.
As these papers fully set forth the requirements necessary to enable
those citizens of the United States who may wish to become exhibitors
to avail themselves of the privileges of the exhibition, I commend
them to your early consideration, especially in view of the near
approach of the time when the exhibition will begin.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
LETTER OF REPRIMAND TO GENERAL HUNTER
TO GENERAL HUNTER.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON,
Dec.31, 1861
MAJOR-GENERAL HUNTER.
DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 23d is received, and I am constrained to say
it is difficult to answer so ugly a letter in good temper. I am, as
you intimate, losing much of the great confidence I placed in you,
not from any act or omission of yours touching the public service, up
to the time you were sent to Leavenworth, but from the flood of
grumbling despatches and letters I have seen from you since. I knew
you were being ordered to Leavenworth at the time it was done; and I
aver that with as tender a regard for your honor and your
sensibilities as I had for my own, it never occurred to me that you
were being "humiliated, insulted, and disgraced"; nor have I, up to
this day, heard an intimation that you have been wronged, coming from
any one but yourself. No one has blamed you for the retrograde
movement from Springfield, nor for the information you gave General
Cameron; and this you could readily understand, if it were not for
your unwarranted assumption that the ordering you to Leavenworth must
necessarily have been done as a punishment for some fault. I thought
then, and think yet, the position assigned to you is as responsible,
and as honorable, as that assigned to Buell--I know that General
McClellan expected more important results from it. My impression is
that at the time you were assigned to the new Western Department, it
had not been determined to replace General Sherman in Kentucky; but
of this I am not certain, because the idea that a command in Kentucky
was very desirable, and one in the farther West undesirable, had
never occurred to me. You constantly speak of being placed in
command of only 3000. Now, tell me, is this not mere impatience?
Have you not known all the while that you are to command four or five
times that many.
I have been, and am sincerely your friend; and if, as such, I dare to
make a suggestion, I would say you are adopting the best possible way
to ruin yourself. "Act well your part, there all the honor lies." He
who does something at the head of one regiment, will eclipse him who
does nothing at the head of a hundred.
Your friend, as ever,
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HALLECK.
WASHINGTON, D.C., December 31, 1861
GENERAL H. W. HALLECK, St. Louis, Missouri:
General McClellan is sick. Are General Buell and yourself in
concert? When he moves on Bowling Green, what hinders it being
reinforced from Columbus? A simultaneous movement by you on Columbus
might prevent it.
A. LINCOLN.
[Similar despatch to Buell same date.]
1862
TELEGRAM TO GENERAL D. C. BUELL.
WASHINGTON CITY, January 1, 1862
BRIGADIER-GENERAL BUELL, Louisville:
General McClellan should not yet be disturbed with business. I think
you better get in concert with General Halleck at once. I write you
to-night. I also telegraph and write Halleck.
A. LINCOLN.
TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 1, 1862
DEAR GENERAL HALLECK:
General McClellan is not dangerously ill, as I hope, but would better
not be disturbed with business. I am very anxious that, in case of
General Buell's moving toward Nashville, the enemy shall not be
greatly reinforced, and I think there is danger he will be from
Columbus. It seems to me that a real or feigned attack upon Columbus
from up the river at the same time would either prevent this or
compensate for it by throwing Columbus into our hands. I wrote
General Buell a letter similar to this, meaning that he and you shall
communicate and act in concert, unless it be your judgment and his
that there is no necessity for it. You and he will understand much
better than I how to do it. Please do not lose time in this matter.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO THE PEOPLE OF MARYLAND,
In view of the recent declaration of the people of Maryland of their
adhesion to the Union, so distinctly made in their recent election,
the President directs that all the prisoners who having heretofore
been arrested in that State are now detained in military custody by
the President's authority, be released from their imprisonment on the
following conditions, namely: that if they were holding any civil or
military offices when arrested, the terms of which have expired, they
shall not resume or reclaim such office; and secondly, all persons
availing themselves of this proclamation shall engage by oath or
parole of honor to maintain the Union and the Constitution of the
United States, and in no way to aid or abet by arms, counsel,
conversation, or information of any kind the existing insurrection
against the Government of the United States.
To guard against misapprehension it is proper to state that this
proclamation does not apply to prisoners of war.
MESSAGE TO CONGRESS.
WASHINGTON, January 2, 1862
To THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
I transmit to Congress a copy of a letter to the Secretary of State
from James R. Partridge, secretary to the executive committee to the
in exhibition to be held in London in the course present year, and a
copy of the correspond which it refers, relative to a vessel for the
of taking such articles as persons in this country may wish to
exhibit on that occasion. As it appears no naval vessel can be spared
for the purpose, I recommend that authority be given to charter a
suitable merchant vessel, in order that facilities similar to those
afforded by the government exhibition of 1851 may also be extended to
citizens of the United States who may desire to contribute to the
exhibition of this year.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
MESSAGES OF DISAPPOINTMENT WITH HIS GENERALS
TELEGRAM TO GENERAL D. C. BUELL.
WASHINGTON, January 4, 1862.
GENERAL BUELL:
Have arms gone forward for East Tennessee? Please tell me the
progress and condition of the movement in that direction. Answer.
A. LINCOLN.
TO GENERAL D. C. BUELL.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON,
January 6, 1862.
BRIGADIER-GENERAL BUELL.
MY DEAR SIR:--Your despatch of yesterday has been received, and it
disappoints and distresses me. I have shown it to General McClellan,
who says he will write you to-day. I am not competent to criticize
your views, and therefore what I offer is in justification of myself.
Of the two, I would rather have a point on the railroad south of
Cumberland Gap than Nashville. First, because it cuts a great artery
of the enemy's communication, which Nashville does not; and secondly,
because it is in the midst of loyal people who would rally around it,
while Nashville is not. Again, I cannot see why the movement on East
Tennessee would not be a diversion in your favor rather than a
disadvantage, assuming that a movement toward Nashville is the main
object. But my distress is that our friends in East Tennessee are
being hanged and driven to despair, and even now, I fear, are
thinking of taking rebel arms for the sake of personal protection.
In this we lose the most valuable stake we have in the South. My
despatch, to which yours is an answer, was sent with the knowledge of
Senator Johnson and Representative Maynard of East Tennessee, and
they will be upon me to know the answer, which I cannot safely show
them. They would despair, possibly resign to go and save their
families somehow, or die with them. I do not intend this to be an
order in any sense, but merely, as intimated before, to show you the
grounds of my anxiety.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BUELL.
WASHINGTON, January 7, 1862.
BRIGADIER-GENERAL D.C. BUELL, Louisville:
Please name as early a day as you safely can on or before which you
can be ready to move southward in concert with Major-General Halleck.
Delay is ruining us, and it is indispensable for me to have something
definite. I send a like despatch to Major-General Halleck.
A. LINCOLN.
MESSAGE TO CONGRESS.
WASHINGTON, January 10, 1862
TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I transmit to Congress a translation of an instruction to the
minister of his Majesty the Emperor of Austria accredited to this
government, and a copy of a note to that minister from the Secretary
of State relative to the questions involved in the taking from the
British steamer Trent of certain citizens of the United States by
order of Captain Wilkes of the United States Navy. This
correspondence may be considered as a sequel to that previously
communicated to Congress relating to the same subject.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
INDORSEMENT ON LETTER FROM GENERAL HALLECK,
JANUARY 10, 1862.
HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE MISSOURI
ST. Louis, January 6, 1862.
To His EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT:
In reply to your Excellency's letter of the 1st instant, I have to
state that on receiving your telegram I immediately communicated with
General Buell and have since sent him all the information I could
obtain of the enemy's movements about Columbus and Camp Beauregard.
No considerable force has been sent from those places to Bowling
Green. They have about 22,000 men at Columbus, and the place is
strongly fortified. I have at Cairo, Port Holt, and Paducah only
about 15,000, which, after leaving guards at these places, would give
me but little over 10,000 men with which to assist General Buell. It
would be madness to attempt anything serious with such a force, and I
cannot at the present time withdraw any from Missouri without risking
the loss of this State. The troops recently raised in other States
of this department have, without my knowledge, been sent to Kentucky
and Kansas.
I am satisfied that the authorities at Washington do not appreciate
the difficulties with which we have to contend here. The operations
of Lane, Jennison, and others have so enraged the people of Missouri
that it is estimated that there is a majority of 8o,ooo against the
government. We are virtually in an enemy's country. Price and
others have a considerable army in the southwest, against which I am
operating with all my available force.
This city and most of the middle and northern counties are
insurrectionary,--burning bridges, destroying telegraph lines, etc.,-
-and can be kept down only by the presence of troops. A large
portion of the foreign troops organized by General Fremont are
unreliable; indeed, many of them are already mutinous. They have
been tampered with by politicians, and made to believe that if they
get up a mutiny and demand Fremont's return the government will be
forced to restore him to duty here. It is believed that some high
officers are in the plot I have already been obliged to disarm
several of these organizations, and I am daily expecting more serious
outbreaks. Another grave difficulty is the want of proper general
officers to command the troops and enforce order and discipline, and
especially to protect public property from robbery and plunder. Some
of the brigadier-generals assigned to this department are entirely
ignorant of their duties and unfit for any command. I assure you,
Mr. President, it is very difficult to accomplish much with such
means. I am in the condition of a carpenter who is required to build
a bridge with a dull axe, a broken saw, and rotten timber. It is
true that I have some very good green timber, which will answer the
purpose as soon as I can get it into shape and season it a little.
I know nothing of General Buell's intended operations, never having
received any information in regard to the general plan of campaign.
If it be intended that his column shall move on Bowling Green while
another moves from Cairo or Paducah on Columbus or Camp Beauregard,
it will be a repetition of the same strategic error which produced
the disaster of Bull Run. To operate on exterior lines against an
enemy occupying a central position will fail, as it always has
failed, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred. It is condemned by
every military authority I have ever read.
General Buell's army and the forces at Paducah occupy precisely the
same position in relation to each other and to the enemy as did the
armies of McDowell and Patterson before the battle of Bull Run.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
H. W. HALLECK, Major-General
[Indorsement]
The within is a copy of a letter just received from General Halleck.
It is exceedingly discouraging. As everywhere else, nothing can be
done.
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR ANDREW.
WASHINGTON, D. C.,
January 11, 1862
GOVERNOR JOHN A. ANDREW, Boston:
I will be greatly obliged if you will arrange; somehow with General
Butler to officer his two un-officered regiments.
A. LINCOLN
TO GENERAL D. C. BUELL.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 13, 1861
BRIGADIER-GENERAL BUELL.
MY DEAR SIR -Your despatch of yesterday is received, in which you
say, "I received your letter and General McClellan's, and will at
once devote my efforts to your views and his." In the midst of my
many cares I have not seen, nor asked to see, General McClellan's
letter to you. For my own views, I have not offered and do not now
offer them as orders; and while I am glad to have them respectfully
considered, I would blame you to follow them contrary to your own
clear judgment, unless I should put them in the form of orders. As
to General McClellan's views, you understand your duty in regard to
them better than I do.
With this preliminary I state my general idea of this war to be, that
we have the greater numbers and the enemy has the greater facility of
concentrating forces upon points of collision; that we must fail
unless we can find some way of making our advantage an overmatch for
his; and that this can only be done by menacing him with superior
forces at different points at the same time, so that we can safely
attack one or both if he makes no change; and if he weakens one to
strengthen the other, forbear to attack the strengthened one, but
seize and hold the weakened one, gaining so much.
To illustrate: Suppose last summer, when Winchester ran away to
reinforce Manassas, we had forborne to attack Manassas, but had
seized and held Winchester. I mention this to illustrate and not to
criticise. I did not lose confidence in McDowell, and I think less
harshly of Patterson than some others seem to. . . . Applying the
principle to your case, my idea is that Halleck shall menace Columbus
and "down river" generally, while you menace Bowling Green and East
Tennessee. If the enemy shall concentrate at Bowling Green, do not
retire from his front, yet do not fight him there either, but seize
Columbus and East Tennessee, one or both, left exposed by the
concentration at Bowling Green. It is a matter of no small anxiety
to me, and which I am sure you will not overlook, that the East
Tennessee line is so long and over so bad a road.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
(Indorsement.)
Having to-day written General Buell a letter, it occurs to me to send
General Halleck a copy of it.
A. LINCOLN.
TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 1 , 1862.
MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK.
MY DEAR SIR:--The Germans are true and patriotic and so far as they
have got cross in Missouri it is upon mistake and misunderstanding.
Without a knowledge of its contents, Governor Koerner, of Illinois,
will hand you this letter. He is an educated and talented German
gentleman, as true a man as lives. With his assistance you can set
everything right with the Germans. . . . My clear judgment is
that, with reference to the German element in your command, you
should have Governor Koerner with you; and if agreeable to you and
him, I will make him a brigadier-general, so that he can afford to
give his time. He does not wish to command in the field, though he
has more military knowledge than some who do. If he goes into the
place, he will simply be an efficient, zealous, and unselfish
assistant to you. I say all this upon intimate personal acquaintance
with Governor Koerner.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN
MESSAGE TO CONGRESS.
WASHINGTON, January 17, 1862
TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I transmit to Congress a translation of an instruction to the
minister of his Majesty the King of Prussia accredited to this
government, and a copy of a note to that minister from the Secretary
of State relating to the capture and detention of certain citizens of
the United States, passengers on board the British steamer Trent, by
order of Captain Wilkes of the United States Navy.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
TO GENERAL McCLELLAN.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON.
January 20, 1862.
MAJOR-GENERAL GEORGE B. McCLELLAN,
Commanding Armies of the United States:
You or any officer you may designate will in your discretion suspend
the writ of habeas corpus so far as may relate to Major Chase, lately
of the Engineer Corps of the Army of the United States, now alleged
to be guilty of treasonable practices against this government.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD.
PRESIDENT'S GENERAL WAR ORDER NO. 1
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON , January 27, 1862.
Ordered, That the 22d day of February, 1862, be the day for a general
movement of the land and the naval forces of the United States
against the insurgent forces.
That especially the army at and about Fortress Monroe, the Army of
the Potomac, the Army of Western Virginia, the army near
Munfordville, Kentucky, the army and flotilla at Cairo, and a naval
force in the Gulf of Mexico, be ready for a movement on that day.
That all other forces, both land and naval, with their respective
commanders, obey existing orders for the time, and be ready to obey
additional orders when duly given.
That the heads of departments, and especially the Secretaries of War
and of the Navy, with all their subordinates, and the
General-in-chief, with all other commanders and subordinates of land
and naval forces, will severally be held to their strict and full
responsibilities for the prompt execution of this order.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
TO SECRETARY STANTON,
EXECUTIVE MANSION WASHINGTON, January 31, 1862
HON. SECRETARY OF WAR.
MY DEAR SIR:--It is my wish that the expedition commonly called the
"Lane Expedition" shall be, as much as has been promised at the
adjutant-general's office, under the supervision of General
McClellan, and not any more. I have not intended, and do not now
intend, that it shall be a great, exhausting affair, but a snug,
sober column of 10,000 or 15,000. General Lane has been told by me
many times that he is under the command of General Hunter, and
assented to it as often as told. It was the distinct agreement
between him and me, when I appointed him, that he was to be under
Hunter.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
PRESIDENT'S SPECIAL WAR ORDER NO. 1.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 31, 1862.
Ordered, That all the disposable force of the Army of the Potomac,
after providing safely for the defence of Washington, be formed into
an expedition for the immediate object of seizing and occupying a
point upon the railroad southwestward of what is known as Manassas
Junction, all details to be in the discretion of the
commander-in-chief, and the expedition to move before or on the 22d
day of February next.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
OPPOSITION TO McCLELLAN'S PLANS
TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN,
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, February 3, 1862.
MAJOR-GENERAL MCCLELLAN.
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?
Yours truly,
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
Memorandum accompanying Letter of President Lincoln to General
McClellan, dated February 3,1862.
First. Suppose the enemy should attack us in force before we reach
the Occoquan, what?
Second. Suppose the enemy in force shall dispute the crossing of the
Occoquan, what? In view of this, might it not be safest for us to
cross the Occoquan at Coichester, rather than at the village of
Occoquan? This would cost the enemy two miles of travel to meet us,
but would, on the contrary, leave us two miles farther from our
ultimate
destination.
Third. Suppose we reach Maple Valley without an attack, will we not
be attacked there in force by the enemy marching by the several roads
from Manassas; and if so, what?
TO WM. H. HERNDON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON,
February 3, 1862.
DEAR WILLIAM:--Yours of January 30th just received. Do just as you
say about the money matter.
As you well know, I have not time to write a letter of respectable
length. God bless you, says
Your friend,
A. LINCOLN.
RESPITE FOR NATHANIEL GORDON
February 4, 1862
ABRAHAM LINCOLN,
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
To all to whom these Presents shall come, Greeting:
Whereas it appears that at a term of the Circuit Court of the United
States of America for the Southern District of New York held in the
month of November, A.D. 1861, Nathaniel Gordon was indicted and
convicted for being engaged in the slave trade, and was by the said
court sentenced to be put to death by hanging by the neck, on Friday
the 7th day of February, AD. 1862:
And whereas a large number of respectable citizens have earnestly
besought me to commute the said sentence of the said Nathaniel Gordon
to a term of imprisonment for life, which application I have felt it
to be my duty to refuse:
And whereas it has seemed to me probable that the unsuccessful
application made for the commutation of his sentence may have
prevented the said Nathaniel Gordon from making the necessary
preparation for the awful change which awaits him;
Now, therefore, be it known, that I, Abraham Lincoln, President of
the United States of America, have granted and do hereby grant unto
him, the said Nathaniel Gordon, a respite of the above recited
sentence, until Friday the twenty-first day of February, A.D. 1862,
between the hours of twelve o'clock at noon and three o'clock in the
afternoon of the said day, when the said sentence shall be executed.
In granting this respite, it becomes my painful duty to admonish the
prisoner that, relinquishing all expectation of pardon by human
authority, he refer himself alone to the mercy of the common God and
Father of all men.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto signed my name and caused the
seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this fourth day of February, A.D.
1862, and of the independence of the United States the eighty-sixth.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.
MESSAGE TO THE SENATE.
WASHINGTON CITY, February 4. 1862
To THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:
The third section of the "Act further to promote the efficiency of
the Navy," approved December 21, 1862, provides:
"That the President of the United States, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, shall have the authority to detail from the
retired list of the navy for the command of squadrons and single
ships such officers as he may believe that the good of the service
requires to be thus placed in command; and such officers may, if upon
the recommendation of the President of the United States they shall
receive a vote of thanks of Congress for their services and gallantry
in action against an enemy, be restored to the active list, and not
otherwise."
In conformity with this law, Captain Samuel F. Du Pont, of the navy,
was nominated to the Senate for continuance as the flag-officer in
command of the squadron which recently rendered such important
service to the Union in the expedition to the coast of South
Carolina.
Believing that no occasion could arise which would more fully
correspond with the intention of the law, or be more pregnant with
happy influence as an example, I cordially recommend that Captain
Samuel F. Du Pont receive a vote of thanks of Congress for his
services and gallantry displayed in the capture of Forts Walker and
Beauregard, commanding the entrance of Port Royal Harbor, on the 7th
of November, 1861.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
TO GENERALS D. HUNTER AND J. H. LANE.
EXECUTIVE MANSION WASHINGTON, FEBRUARY 4, 1862.
MAJOR-GENERAL HUNTER AND BRIGADIER-GENERAL LANE,
Leavenworth, Kansas:
My wish has been and is to avail the government of the services of
both General Hunter and General Lane, and, so far as possible, to
personally oblige both. General Hunter is the senior officer, and
must command when they serve together; though in so far as he can
consistently with the public service and his own honor oblige General
Lane, he will also oblige me. If they cannot come to an amicable
understanding, General Lane must report to General Hunter for duty,
according to the rules, or decline the service.
A. LINCOLN.
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 1, RELATING TO POLITICAL
PRISONERS.
WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON,
February 14,1862.
The breaking out of a formidable insurrection based on a conflict of
political ideas, being an event without precedent in the United
States, was necessarily attended by great confusion and perplexity of
the public mind. Disloyalty before unsuspected suddenly became bold,
and treason astonished the world by bringing at once into the field
military forces superior in number to the standing army of the United
States.
Every department of the government was paralyzed by treason.
Defection appeared in the Senate, in the House of Representatives, in
the Cabinet, in the Federal courts; ministers and consuls returned
from foreign countries to enter the insurrectionary councils of land
or naval forces; commanding and other officers of the army and in the
navy betrayed our councils or deserted their posts for commands in
the insurgent forces. Treason was flagrant in the revenue and in the
post-office service, as well as in the Territorial governments and in
the Indian reserves.
Not only governors, judges, legislators, and ministerial officers in
the States, but even whole States rushed one after another with
apparent unanimity into rebellion. The capital was besieged and its
connection with all the States cut off. Even in the portions of the
country which were most loyal, political combinations and secret
societies were formed furthering tile work of disunion, while, from
motives of disloyalty or cupidity or from excited passions or
perverted sympathies, individuals were found furnishing men, money,
and materials of war and supplies to the insurgents' military and
naval forces. Armies, ships, fortifications, navy yards, arsenals,
military posts, and garrisons one after another were betrayed or
abandoned to the insurgents.
Congress had not anticipated, and so had not provided for, the
emergency. The municipal authorities were powerless and inactive.
The judicial machinery seemed as if it had been designed, not to
sustain the government, but to embarrass and betray it.
Foreign intervention, openly invited and industriously instigated by
the abettors of the insurrection, became imminent, and has only been
prevented by the practice of strict and impartial justice, with the
most perfect moderation, in our intercourse with nations.
The public mind was alarmed and apprehensive, though fortunately not
distracted or disheartened. It seemed to be doubtful whether the
Federal Government, which one year before had been thought a model
worthy of universal acceptance, had indeed the ability to defend and
maintain itself.
Some reverses, which, perhaps, were unavoidable, suffered by newly
levied and inefficient forces, discouraged the loyal and gave new
hopes to the insurgents. Voluntary enlistments seemed about to cease
and desertions commenced. Parties speculated upon the question
whether conscription had not become necessary to fill up the armies
of the United States.
In this emergency the President felt it his duty to employ with
energy the extraordinary powers which the Constitution confides to
him in cases of insurrection. He called into the field such military
and naval forces, unauthorized by the existing laws, as seemed
necessary. He directed measures to prevent the use of the post-
office for treasonable correspondence. He subjected passengers to
and from foreign countries to new passport regulations, and he
instituted a blockade, suspended the writ of habeas corpus in various
places, and caused persons who were represented to him as being or
about to engage in disloyal and treasonable practices to be arrested
by special civil as well as military agencies and detained in
military custody when necessary to prevent them and deter others from
such practices. Examinations of such cases were instituted, and some
of the persons so arrested have been discharged from time to time
under circumstances or upon conditions compatible, as was thought,
with the public safety.
Meantime a favorable change of public opinion has occurred. The line
between loyalty and disloyalty is plainly defined. The whole
structure of the government is firm and stable. Apprehension of
public danger and facilities for treasonable practices have
diminished with the passions which prompted heedless persons to adopt
them. The insurrection is believed to have culminated and to be
declining.
The President, in view of these facts, and anxious to favor a return
to the normal course of the administration as far as regard for the
public welfare will allow, directs that all political prisoners or
state prisoners now held in military custody be released on their
subscribing to a parole engaging them to render no aid or comfort to
the enemies in hostility to the United States.
The Secretary of War will, however, in his discretion, except from
the effect of this order any persons detained as spies in the service
of the insurgents, or others whose release at the present moment may
be deemed incompatible with the public safety.
To all persons who shall be so released, and who shall keep their
parole, the President grants an amnesty for any past offences of
treason or disloyalty which they may have comminuted.
Extraordinary arrests will hereafter be made under the direction of
the military authorities alone.
By order of the President
EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War.
MESSAGE TO CONGRESS.
WASHINGTON CITY, February 15, 1862
TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES:
The third section of the "Act further to promote the efficiency of
the Navy," approved December 21, 1861, provides
"That the President of the United States, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, shall have the authority to detail from the
retired list of the navy for the command of squadrons and single
ships such officers as he may believe that the good of the service
requires to be thus placed in command; and such officers may, if upon
the recommendation of the President of the United States they shall
receive a vote of thanks of Congress for their services and gallantry
in action against an enemy, be restored to the active list, and not
otherwise."
In conformity with this law, Captain Louis M. Goldsborough, of the
navy, was nominated to the Senate for continuance as the flag-officer
in command of the North Atlantic Blockading Squadron, which recently
rendered such important service to the Union in the expedition to the
coast of North Carolina.
Believing that no occasion could arise which would more fully
correspond with the intention of the law or be more pregnant with
happy influence as an example, I cordially recommend that Captain
Louis M. Goldsborough receive a vote of thanks of Congress for his
services and gallantry displayed in the combined attack of the forces
commanded by him and Brigadier-General Burnside in the capture of
Roanoke Island and the destruction of rebel gunboats On the 7th, 8th,
and 10th of February, 1862.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
FIRST WRITTEN NOTICE OF GRANT
TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON,
February 16, 1862.
MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK, St. Louis, Missouri:
You have Fort Donelson safe, unless Grant shall be overwhelmed from
outside; to prevent which latter will, I think, require all the
vigilance, energy, and skill of yourself and Buell, acting in full
co-operation. Columbus will not get at Grant, but the force from
Bowling Green will. They hold the railroad from Bowling Green to
within a few miles of Fort Donelson, with the bridge at Clarksville
undisturbed. It is unsafe to rely that they will not dare to expose
Nashville to Buell. A small part of their force can retire slowly
toward Nashville, breaking up the railroad as they go, and keep Buell
out of that city twenty days. Meanwhile Nashville will be abundantly
defended by forces from all South and perhaps from hers at Manassas.
Could not a cavalry force from General Thomas on the upper Cumberland
dash across, almost unresisted, and cut the railroad at or near
Knoxville, Tennessee? In the midst 6f a bombardment at Fort
Donelson, why could not a gunboat run up and destroy the bridge at
Clarksville? Our success or failure at Fort Donelson is vastly
important, and I beg you to put your soul in the effort. I send a
copy of this to Buell.
A. LINCOLN.
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 2.--IN RELATION TO STATE PRISONERS.
WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY,
FEBRUARY 27, 1862
It is ordered:
First. That a special commission of two persons, one of military
rank and the other in civil life, be appointed to examine the cases
of the state prisoners remaining in the military custody of the
United States, and to determine whether in view of the public Safety
and the existing rebellion they should be discharged, or remain in
military custody, or be remitted to the civil tribunals for trial.
Second. That Major-General John A. Dix, commanding in Baltimore, and
the HON. Edwards Pierrepont, of New York, be, and they are hereby,
appointed commissioners for the purpose above mentioned; and they are
authorized to examine, hear, and determine the cases aforesaid ex
parte and in a summary manner, at such times and places as in their
discretion they may appoint, and make full report to the War
Department.
By order of the President
EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War.
ORDER RELATING TO COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE.
Considering that the existing circumstances of the country allow a
partial restoration of commercial intercourse between the inhabitants
of those parts of the United States heretofore declared to be in
insurrection and the citizens of the loyal States of the Union, and
exercising the authority and discretion confided to me by the act of
Congress, approved July 13, 1861, entitled "An act further to provide
for the collection of duties on imports, and for other purposes," I
hereby license and permit such commercial intercourse in all cases
within the rules and regulations which have been or may be prescribed
by the Secretary of the Treasury for conducting and carrying on the
same on the inland waters arid ways of the United States.
WASHINGTON, February 28, 1862.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
SPEECH TO THE PERUVIAN MINISTER,
WASHINGTON, D. C.,
MARCH 4, 1862
The United States have no enmities, animosities, or rivalries, and no
interests which conflict with the welfare, safety, and rights or
interests of any other nation. Their own prosperity, happiness, and
aggrandizement are sought most safely and advantageously through the
preservation not only of peace on their own part, but peace among all
other nations. But while the United States are thus a friend to all
other nations, they do not seek to conceal the fact that they cherish
especial sentiments of friendship for, and sympathies with, those
who, like themselves, have founded their institutions on the
principle of the equal rights of men; and such nations being more
prominently neighbors of the United States, the latter are
co-operating with them in establishing civilization and culture on
the American continent. Such being the general principles which
govern the United States in their foreign relations, you may be
assured, sir, that in all things this government will deal justly,
frankly, and, if it be possible, even liberally with Peru, whose
liberal sentiments toward us you have so kindly expressed.
MESSAGE TO CONGRESS RECOMMENDING COMPENSATED EMANCIPATION.
March 6, 1862
FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:--
I recommend the adoption of a joint resolution by your honorable
bodies which shall be substantially as follows:
"Resolved, That the United States ought to co-operate with any State
which may adopt gradual abolishment of slavery, giving to such State
pecuniary aid, to be used by such State, in its discretion, to
compensate for the inconveniences, public and private, produced by
such change of system."
If the proposition contained in the resolution does not meet the
approval of Congress and the country, there is the end; but if it
does command such approval, I deem it of importance that the States
and people immediately interested should be at once distinctly
notified of the fact, so that they may begin to consider whether to
accept or reject it. The Federal Government would find its highest
interest in such a measure, as one of the most efficient means of
self-preservation. The leaders of the existing insurrection
entertain the hope that this government will ultimately be forced to
acknowledge the independence of some part of the disaffected region,
and that all the slave States north of such part will then say, "The
Union for which we have struggled being already gone, we now choose
to go with the Southern section." To deprive them of this hope
substantially ends the rebellion, and the initiation of emancipation
completely deprives them of it as to all the States initiating it.
The point is not that all the States tolerating slavery would very
soon, if at all, initiate emancipation; but that, while the offer is
equally made to all, the more northern shall by such initiation make
it certain to the more southern that in no event will the former ever
join the latter in their proposed confederacy. I say "initiation"
because, in my judgment, gradual and not sudden emancipation is
better for all. In the mere financial or pecuniary view, any member
of Congress with the census tables and treasury reports before him
can readily see for himself how very soon the current expenditures of
this war would purchase, at fair valuation, all the slaves in any
named State. Such a proposition on the part of the General
Government sets up no claim of a right by Federal authority to
interfere with slavery within State limits, referring, as it does,
the absolute control of the subject in each case to the State and its
people immediately interested. It is proposed as a matter of
perfectly free choice with them.
In the annual message last December, I thought fit to say, "The Union
must be preserved, and hence all indispensable means must be
employed." I said this not hastily, but deliberately. War has been
made and continues to be an indispensable means to this end. A
practical reacknowledgment of the national authority would render the
war unnecessary, and it would at once cease. If, however, resistance
continues, the war must also continue; and it is impossible to
foresee all the incidents which may attend and all the ruin which may
follow it. Such as may seem indispensable or may obviously promise
great efficiency toward ending the struggle must and will come.
The proposition now made (though an offer only), I hope it may be
esteemed no offense to ask whether the pecuniary consideration
tendered would not be of more value to the States and private persons
concerned than are the institution and property in it in the present
aspect of affairs.
While it is true that the adoption of the proposed resolution would
be merely initiatory, and not within itself a practical measure, it
is recommended in the hope that it would soon lead to important
practical results. In full view of my great responsibility to my God
and to my country, I earnestly beg the attention of Congress and the
people to the subject.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
INDORSEMENT ON LETTER FROM GOVERNOR YATES.
STATE OF ILLINOIS, EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
SPRINGFIELD, ILL., March 1, 1862
HON. EDWIN M. STANTON,
SECRETARY OF WAR, Washington, D. C.
SIR:--The government at my special request a few months since
contracted for fourteen batteries of the James rifled gun, 6-pounder
calibre, and a limited quantity of the James projectiles, weighing
about fourteen pounds each. The reports showing the superiority of
this gun and projectile, both as regards range, accuracy, and
execution, for field service over that of all others at the battle of
Fort Donelson, leads me to request that there be furnished to the
State of Illinois in the shortest time practicable seven batteries of
12-pounder calibre James rifled guns, with carriages, harness,
implements, etc., complete and ready for field service, together with
the following fixed ammunition to each gun, viz., 225 shells, 225
canister, and 50 solid projectiles, weighing about 24 pounds each,
and also 200 shells, 100 canister, and 100 solid projectiles for each
of the guns of the fourteen batteries named above, weighing about
14 pounds each, all to be of the James model.
Very respectfully,
RICHARD YATES,
Governor of Illinois.
[Indorsement.]
March 8, 1862.
The within is from the Governor of Illinois. I understand the seven
additional batteries now sought are to be 6-gun batteries, and the
object is to mix them with the fourteen batteries they already have
so as to make each battery consist of four 6-pounders and two
12-pounders. I shall be very glad to have the requisition filled if
it can be without detriment to the service.
A. LINCOLN.
PRESIDENT'S GENERAL WAR ORDER NO.2.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON
March 8, 1862.
Ordered:
1. That the major-general commanding the Army of the Potomac proceed
forthwith to organize that part of the said army destined to enter
upon active operations (including the reserve, but excluding the
troops to be left in the fortifications about Washington) into four
army corps, to be commanded according to seniority of rank, as
follows:
First Corps to consist of four divisions, and to be commanded by
Major-General I. McDowell.
Second Corps to consist of three divisions, and to be commanded by
Brigadier-General E. V. Sumner.
Third Corps to consist of three divisions, and to be commanded by
Brigadier-General S. P. Heintzelman.
Fourth Corps to consist of three divisions, and to be commanded by
Brigadier-General E. D. Keyes.
2. That the divisions now commanded by the officers above assigned
to the commands of army corps shall be embraced in and form part of
their respective corps.
3. The forces left for the defense of Washington will be placed in
command of Brigadier-General James S. Wadsworth, who shall also be
military governor of the District of Columbia.
4. That this order be executed with such promptness and dispatch as
not to delay the commencement of the operations already directed to
be underwritten by the Army of the Potomac.
5. A fifth army corps, to be commanded by Major general N. P. Banks,
will be formed from his own and General Shields's (late General
Lander's) divisions.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
PRESIDENT'S GENERAL WAR ORDER NO.3.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, MARCH 8,1862
Ordered: That no change of the base of operations of the Army of the
Potomac shall be made without leaving in and about Washington such a
force as in the opinion of the general-in-chief and the commanders of
all the army corps shall leave said city entirely secure.
That no more than two army corps (about 50,000 troops) of said Army
of the Potomac shall be moved en route for a new base of operations
until the navigation of the Potomac from Washington to the Chesapeake
Bay shall be freed from enemy's batteries and other obstructions, or
until the President shall hereafter give express permission.
That any movements as aforesaid en route for a new base of operations
which may be ordered by the general-in-chief, and which may be
intended to move upon the Chesapeake Bay, shall begin to move upon
the bay as early as the 18th day of March instant, and the
general-in-chief shall be responsible that it so move as early as
that day.
Ordered, That the army and navy co-operate in an immediate effort to
capture the enemy's batteries upon the Potomac between Washington and
the Chesapeake Bay.
A. LINCOLN
MEMORANDUM OF AN INTERVIEW BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND SOME BORDER
SLAVE STATE REPRESENTATIVES, BY HON. J. W. CRISFIELD.
"DEAR SIR:--I called, at the request of the President, to ask you to
come to the White House tomorrow morning, at nine o'clock, and bring
such of your colleagues as are in town."
WASHINGTON, March 10, 1862.
Yesterday, on my return from church, I found Mr. Postmaster-General
Blair in my room, writing the above note, which he immediately
suspended, and verbally communicated the President's invitation, and
stated that the President's purpose was to have some conversation
with the delegations of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Virginia, and
Delaware, in explanation of his message of the 6th instant.
This morning these delegations, or such of them as were in town,
assembled at the White House at the appointed time, and after some
little delay were admitted to an audience. Mr. Leary and myself were
the only members from Maryland present, and, I think, were the only
members of the delegation at that time in the city. I know that Mr.
Pearoe, of the Senate, and Messrs. Webster and Calvert, of the
House, were absent.
After the usual salutations, and we were seated, the President said,
in substance, that he had invited us to meet him to have some
conversation with us in explanation of his message of the 6th; that
since he had sent it in several of the gentlemen then present had
visited him, but had avoided any allusion to the message, and he
therefore inferred that the import of the message had been
misunderstood, and was regarded as inimical to the interests we
represented; and he had resolved he would talk with us, and disabuse
our minds of that erroneous opinion.
The President then disclaimed any intent to injure the interests or
wound the sensibilities of the slave States. On the contrary, his
purpose was to protect the one and respect the other; that we were
engaged in a terrible, wasting, and tedious war; immense armies were
in the field, and must continue in the field as long as the war
lasts; that these armies must, of necessity, be brought into contact
with slaves in the States we represented and in other States as they
advanced; that slaves would come to the camps, and continual
irritation was kept up; that he was constantly annoyed by conflicting
and antagonistic complaints: on the one side a certain class
complained if the slave was not protected by the army; persons were
frequently found who, participating in these views, acted in a way
unfriendly to the slaveholder; on the other hand, slaveholders
complained that their rights were interfered with, their slaves
induced to abscond and protected within the lines; these complaints
were numerous, loud and deep; were a serious annoyance to him and
embarrassing to the progress of the war; that it kept alive a spirit
hostile to the government in the States we represented; strengthened
the hopes of the Confederates that at some day the border States
would unite with them, and thus tend to prolong the war; and he was
of opinion, if this resolution should be adopted by Congress and
accepted by our States, these causes of irritation and these hopes
would be removed, and more would be accomplished toward shortening
the war than could be hoped from the greatest victory achieved by
Union armies; that he made this proposition in good faith, and
desired it to be accepted, if at all, voluntarily, and in the same
patriotic spirit in which it was made; that emancipation was a
subject exclusively under the control of the States, and must be
adopted or rejected by each for itself; that he did not claim nor had
this government any right to coerce them for that purpose; that such
was no part of his purpose in making this proposition, and he wished
it to be clearly understood; that he did not expect us there to be
prepared to give him an answer, but he hoped we would take the
subject into serious consideration, confer with one another, and then
take such course as we felt our duty and the interests of our
constituents required of us.
Mr. Noell, of Missouri, said that in his State slavery was not
considered a permanent institution; that natural causes were there in
operation which would at no distant day extinguish it, and he did not
think that this proposition was necessary for that; and, besides
that, he and his friends felt solicitous as to the message on account
of the different constructions which the resolution and message had
received. The New York Tribune was for it, and understood it to mean
that we must accept gradual emancipation according to the plan
suggested, or get something worse.
The President replied that he must not be expected to quarrel with
the New York Tribune before the right time; he hoped never to have to
do it; he would not anticipate events. In respect to emancipation in
Missouri, he said that what had been observed by Mr. Noell was
probably true, but the operation of these natural causes had not
prevented the irritating conduct to which he had referred, or
destroyed the hopes of the Confederates that Missouri would at some
time merge herself alongside of them, which, in his judgment, the
passage of this resolution by Congress and its acceptance by Missouri
would accomplish.
Mr. Crisfield, of Maryland, asked what would be the effect of the
refusal of the State to accept this proposal, and he desired to know
if the President looked to any policy beyond the acceptance or
rejection of this scheme.
The President replied that he had no designs beyond the actions of
the States on this particular subject. He should lament their
refusal to accept it, but he had no designs beyond their refusal of
it.
Mr. Menzies, of Kentucky, inquired if the President thought there was
any power except in the States themselves to carry out his scheme of
emancipation.
The President replied that he thought there could not be. He then
went off into a course of remarks not qualifying the foregoing
declaration nor material to be repeated to a just understanding of
his meaning.
Mr. Crisfield said he did not think the people of Maryland looked
upon slavery as a permanent institution; and he did not know that
they would be very reluctant to give it up if provision was made to
meet the loss and they could be rid of the race; but they did not
like to be coerced into emancipation, either by the direct action of
the government or by indirection, as through the emancipation of
slaves in this District, or the confiscation of Southern property as
now threatened; and he thought before they would consent to consider
this proposition they would require to be informed on these points.
The President replied that, unless he was expelled by the act of God
or the Confederate armies he should occupy that house for three
years; and as long as he remained there Maryland had nothing to fear
either for her institutions or her interests on the points referred
to.
Mr. Crisfield immediately added: "Mr. President, if what you now say
could be heard by the people of Maryland, they would consider your
proposition with a much better feeling than I fear without it they
will be inclined to do."
The President: "That [meaning a publication of what he said] will not
do; it would force me into a quarrel before the proper time "; and,
again intimating, as he had before done, that a quarrel with the
"Greeley faction" was impending, he said he did not wish to encounter
it before the proper time, nor at all if it could be avoided.
[The Greely faction wanted an immediate Emancipation Proclamation.
D.W.]
Governor Wickliffe, of Kentucky, then asked him respecting the
constitutionality of his scheme.
The President replied: "As you may suppose, I have considered that;
and the proposition now submitted does not encounter any
constitutional difficulty. It proposes simply to co-operate with any
State by giving such State pecuniary aid"; and he thought that the
resolution, as proposed by him, would be considered rather as the
expression of a sentiment than as involving any constitutional
question.
Mr. Hall, of Missouri, thought that if this proposition was adopted
at all it should be by the votes of the free States, and come as a
proposition from them to the slave States, affording them an
inducement to put aside this subject of discord; that it ought not to
be expected that members representing slaveholding constituencies
should declare at once, and in advance of any proposition to them,
for the emancipation of slavery.
The President said he saw and felt the force of the objection; it was
a fearful responsibility, and every gentleman must do as he thought
best; that he did not know how this scheme was received by the
members from the free States; some of them had spoken to him and
received it kindly; but for the most part they were as reserved and
chary as we had been, and he could not tell how they would vote. And
in reply to some expression of Mr. Hall as to his own opinion
regarding slavery, he said he did not pretend to disguise his anti-
slavery feeling; that he thought it was wrong, and should continue to
think so; but that was not the question we had to deal with now.
Slavery existed, and that, too, as well by the act of the North as of
the South; and in any scheme to get rid of it the North as well as
the South was morally bound to do its full and equal share. He
thought the institution wrong and ought never to have existed; but
yet he recognized the rights of property which had grown out of it,
and would respect those rights as fully as similar rights in any
other property; that property can exist and does legally exist. He
thought such a law wrong, but the rights of property resulting must
be respected; he would get rid of the odious law, not by violating
the rights, but by encouraging the proposition and offering
inducements to give it up.
Here the interview, so far as this subject is concerned, terminated
by Mr. Crittenden's assuring the President that, whatever might be
our final action, we all thought him solely moved by a high
patriotism and sincere devotion to the happiness and glory of his
country; and with that conviction we should consider respectfully the
important suggestions he had made.
After some conversation on the current war news, we retired, and I
immediately proceeded to my room and wrote out this paper.
J. W. CRISFIELD.
We were present at the interview described in the foregoing paper of
Mr. Crisfield, and we certify that the substance of what passed on
the occasion is in this paper faithfully and fully given.
J. W. MENZIES,
J. J. CRITTENDEN,
R. MALLORY.
March 10, 1862.
PRESIDENT'S SPECIAL WAR ORDER NO.3.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, March 11, 1862.
Major-General McClellan having personally taken the field at the head
of the Army of the Potomac, until otherwise ordered he is relieved
from the command of the other military departments, he retaining
command of the Department of the Potomac.
Ordered further, That the departments now under the respective
commands of Generals Halleck and Hunter, together with so much of
that under General Buell as lies west of a north and south line
indefinitely drawn through Knoxville, Tenn., be consolidated and
designated the Department of the Mississippi, and that until
otherwise ordered Major General Halleck have command of said
department.
Ordered also, That the country west of the Department of the Potomac
and east of the Department of the Mississippi be a military
department, to be called the Mountain Department, and that the same
be commanded by Major-General Fremont.
That all the commanders of departments, after the receipt of this
order by them, respectively report severally and directly to the
Secretary of War, and that prompt, full, and frequent reports will be
expected of all and each of them.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
FROM SECRETARY STANTON TO GENERAL MCCLELLAN.
WAR DEPARTMENT, March 13, 1862.
MAJOR-GENERAL GEORGE B. MCCLELLAN:
The President, having considered the plan of operations agreed upon
by yourself and the commanders of army corps, makes no objection to
the same but gives the following directions as to its execution:
1. Leave such force at Manassas Junction as shall make it entirely
certain that the enemy shall no repossess himself of that position
and line of communication.
2. Leave Washington entirely secure.
3. Move the remainder of the force down the Potomac, choosing a new
base at Fortress Monroe or anywhere between here and there, or, at
all events, move such remainder of the army at once in pursuit of the
enemy by some route.
EDWARD M. STANTON,
Secretary of War.
SPEECH TO A PARTY OF MASSACHUSETTS GENTLEMAN
WASHINGTON, MARCH 13, 1862
I thank you, Mr. Train, for your kindness in presenting me with this
truly elegant and highly creditable specimen of the handiwork of the
mechanics of your State of Massachusetts, and I beg of you to express
my hearty thanks to the donors. It displays a perfection of
workmanship which I really wish I had time to acknowledge in more
fitting words, and I might then follow your idea that it is
suggestive, for it is evidently expected that a good deal of whipping
is to be done. But as we meet here socially let us not think only of
whipping rebels, or of those who seem to think only of whipping
negroes, but of those pleasant days, which it is to be hoped are in
store for us, when seated behind a good pair of horses we can crack
our whips and drive through a peaceful, happy, and prosperous land.
With this idea, gentlemen, I must leave you for my business duties.
[It was likely a Buggy-Whip D.W.]
MESSAGE TO CONGRESS.
WASHINGTON CITY, March 20, 1862.
TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
The third section of the "Act further to promote the efficiency of
the Navy, " approved December21, 1861, provides:
"That the President of the United States, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, shall have the authority to detail from the
retired list of the navy for the command of squadrons and single
ships such officers as he may believe the good of the service
requires to be thus placed in command; and such officers may, if upon
the recommendation of the President of the United States they shall
receive a vote of thanks cf Congress for their services and gallantry
in action against an enemy, be restored to the active list, and not
otherwise."
In conformity with this law, Captain Samuel F. Du Pont, of the navy,
was nominated to the Senate for continuance as the flag-officer in
command of the squadron which recently rendered such important
service to the Union in the expedition to the coasts of South
Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.
Believing that no occasion could arise which would more fully
correspond with the intention of the law or be more pregnant with
happy influence as an example, I cordially recommend that Captain
Samuel F. Du Pont receive a vote of thanks of Congress for his
service and gallantry displayed in the capture since the 21st
December, 1861, of various ports on the coasts of Georgia and
Florida, particularly Brunswick, Cumberland Island and Sound, Amelia
Island, the towns of St. Mary's, St. Augustine, and Jacksonville and
Fernandina.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, MARCH 31, 1862
MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN.
MY DEAR SIR:-This morning I felt constrained to order Blenker's
division to Fremont, and I write this to assure you I did so with
great pain, understanding that you would wish it otherwise. If you
could know the full pressure of the case, I am confident that you
would justify it, even beyond a mere acknowledgment that the
commander-in-chief may order what he pleases.
Yours very truly,
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
GIFT OF SOME RABBITS
TO MICHAEL CROCK.
360 N. Fourth St., Philadelphia.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON,
April 2, 1862.
MY DEAR SIR:-Allow me to thank you in behalf of my little son for
your present of white rabbits. He is very much pleased with them.
Yours truly,
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
INSTRUCTION TO SECRETARY STANTON.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 3, 1862.
The Secretary of War will order that one or the other of the corps of
General McDowell and General Sumner remain in front of Washington
until further orders from the department, to operate at or in the
direction of Manassas Junction, or otherwise, as occasion may
require; that the other Corps not so ordered to remain go forward to
General McClellan as speedily as possible; that General McClellan
commence his forward movements from his new base at once, and that
such incidental modifications as the foregoing may render proper be
also made.
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO GENERAL McCLELLAN.
WASHINGTON, April 6, 1862.
GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN:
Yours of 11 A. M. today received. Secretary of War informs me that
the forwarding of transportation, ammunition, and Woodbury's brigade,
under your orders, is not, and will not be, interfered with. You now
have over one hundred thousand troops with you, independent of
General Wool's command. I think you better break the enemy's line
from Yorktown to Warwick River at once. This will probably use time
as advantageously as you can.
A. LINCOLN, President
TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN.
WASHINGTON, April 9, 1862
MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN.
MY DEAR SIR+--Your despatches, complaining that you are not properly
sustained, while they do not offend me, do pain me very much.
Blenker's division was withdrawn from you before you left here, and
you knew the pressure under which I did it, and, as I thought,
acquiesced in it certainly not without reluctance.
After you left I ascertained that less than 20,000 unorganized men,
without a single field battery, were all you designed to be left for
the defense of Washington and Manassas Junction, and part of this
even to go to General Hooker's old position; General Banks's corps,
once designed for Manassas Junction, was divided and tied up on the
line of Winchester and Strasburg, and could not leave it without
again exposing the upper Potomac and the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad.
This presented (or would present when McDowell and Sumner should be
gone) a great temptation to the enemy to turn back from the
Rappahannock and sack Washington. My explicit order that Washington
should, by the judgment of all the Commanders of corps, be left
entirely secure, had been neglected. It was precisely this that
drove me to detain McDowell.
I do not forget that I was satisfied with your arrangement to leave
Banks at Manassas Junction; but when that arrangement was broken up
and nothing substituted for it, of course I was not satisfied. I was
constrained to substitute something for it myself.
And now allow me to ask, do you really think I should permit the line
from Richmond via Manaasas Junction to this city to be entirely open,
except what resistance could be presented by less than 20,000
unorganized troops? This is a question which the country will not
allow me to evade.
There is a curious mystery about the number of the troops now with
you. When I telegraphed you on the 6th, saying you had over 100,000
with you, I had just obtained from the Secretary of War a statement,
taken as he said from your own returns, making 108,000 then with you
and en route to you. You now say you will have but 85,000 when all
enroute to you shall have reached you. How can this discrepancy of
23,000 be accounted for?
As to General Wool's command, I understand it is doing for you
precisely what a like number of your own would have to do if that
command was away. I suppose the whole force which has gone forward
to you is with you by this time; and if so, I think it is the precise
time for you to strike a blow. By delay the enemy will relatively
gain upon you--that is, he will gain faster by fortifications and
reinforcements than you can by reinforcements alone.
And once more let me tell you it is indispensable to you that you
strike a blow. I am powerless to help this. You will do me the
justice to remember I always insisted that going down the bay in
search of a field, instead of fighting at or near Manassas, was only
shifting and not surmounting a difficulty; that we would find the
same enemy and the same or equal entrenchments at either place. The
country will not fail to note--is noting now--that the present
hesitation to move upon an entrenched enemy is but the story of
Manassas repeated.
I beg to assure you that I have never written you or spoken to you in
greater kindness of feeling than now, nor with a fuller purpose to
sustain you, so far as in my most anxious judgment I consistently
can; but you must act.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON,
April 9, 1862.
MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK, Saint Louis, Mo.:
If the rigor of the confinement of Magoffin (Governor of Kentucky) at
Alton is endangering his life, or materially impairing his health, I
wish it mitigated as far as it can be consistently with his safe
detention.
A. LINCOLN.
Please send above, by order of the President.
JOHN HAY.
PROCLAMATION RECOMMENDING THANKSGIVING FOR VICTORIES,
APRIL 10, 1862.
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A Proclamation
It has pleased Almighty God to vouchsafe signal victories to the land
and naval forces engaged in suppressing, an internal rebellion, and
at the same time to avert from our country the dangers of foreign
intervention and invasion.
It is therefore recommended to the people of the United States that
at their next weekly assemblages in their accustomed places of public
worship which shall occur after notice of this proclamation shall
have been received, they especially acknowledge and render thanks to
our Heavenly Father for these inestimable blessings, that they then
and there implore spiritual consolation in behalf of all who have
been brought into affliction by the casualties and calamities of
sedition and civil war, and that they reverently invoke the divine
guidance for our national counsels, to the end that they may speedily
result in the restoration of peace, harmony, and unity throughout our
borders and hasten the establishment of fraternal relations among all
the countries of the earth.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.
Done at the city of Washington, this tenth day of April, A.D. 1862,
and of the independence of the United States the eighty-sixth.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.
ABOLISHING SLAVERY IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
MESSAGE TO CONGRESS.
April 16, 1862.
FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
The act entitled "An act for the relief of certain persons held to
service or labor in the District of Columbia" has this day been
approved and signed.
I have never doubted the constitutional authority of Congress to
abolish slavery in this District, and I have ever desired to see the
national capital freed from the institution in some satisfactory way.
Hence there has never been in my mind any question on the subject
except the one of expediency, arising in view of all the
circumstances. If there be matters within and about this act which
might have taken a course or shape more satisfactory to my judgment,
I do not attempt to specify them. I am gratified that the two
principles of compensation and colonization are both recognized and
practically applied in the act.
In the matter of compensation, it is provided that claims may be
presented within ninety days from the passage of the act, "but not
thereafter"; and there is no saving for minors, femmes covert, insane
or absent persons. I presume this is an omission by mere oversight,
and I recommend that it be supplied by an amendatory or supplemental
act.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN.
WASHINGTON, April 21, 1862.
MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:
Your despatch of the 19th was received that day. Fredericksburg is
evacuated and the bridges destroyed by the enemy, and a small part of
McDowell's command occupies this side of the Rappahannock, opposite
the town. He purposes moving his whole force to that point.
A. LINCOLN.
TO POSTMASTER-GENERAL
A. LINCOLN. EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON,
April 24, 1862.
Hon. POSTMASTER-GENERAL.
MY DEAR SIR:--The member of Congress from the district including
Tiffin, O., calls on me about the postmaster at that place.
I believe I turned over a despatch to you from some persons there,
asking a suspension, so as for them to be heard, or something of the
sort. If nothing, or nothing amounting to anything, has been done, I
think the suspension might now be suspended, and the commission go
forward.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN.
WASHINGTON, April 29, 1862.
MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:
Would it derange or embarrass your operations if I were to appoint
Captain Charles Griffin a brigadier-general of volunteers? Please
answer.
A. LINCOLN.
MESSAGE TO THE SENATE, MAY 1, 1862.
TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:
In answer to the resolution of the Senate [of April 22] in relation
to Brigadier-General Stone, I have the honor to state that he was
arrested and imprisoned under my general authority, and upon evidence
which whether he be guilty or innocent, required, as appears to me,
such proceedings to be had against him for the public safety. I
deem it incompatible with the public interest, as also, perhaps,
unjust to General Stone, to make a more particular statement of the
evidence.
He has not been tried because, in the state of military operations at
the time of his arrest and since, the officers to constitute a court
martial and for witnesses could not be withdrawn from duty without
serious injury to the service. He will be allowed a trial without
any unnecessary delay; the charges and specifications will be
furnished him in due season, and every facility for his defense will
be afforded him by the War Department.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN,
WASHINGTON, MAY 1, 1862
TELEGRAM TO GENERAL McCLELLAN
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, MAY 1, 1862
MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:
Your call for Parrott guns from Washington alarms me, chiefly because
it argues indefinite procrastination. Is anything to be done?
A LINCOLN.
TELEGRAM TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK.
WAR DEPARTMENT, MAY 1, 1862
MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK, Pittsburgh Landing, Tennessee:
I am pressed by the Missouri members of Congress to give General
Schofield independent command in Missouri. They insist that for want
of this their local troubles gradually grow worse. I have forborne,
so far, for fear of interfering with and embarrassing your
operations. Please answer telling me whether anything, and what, I
can do for them without injuriously interfering with you.
A. LINCOLN.
RESPONSE TO EVANGELICAL LUTHERANS, MAY 6, 1862
GENTLEMEN:--I welcome here the representatives of the Evangelical
Lutherans of the United States. I accept with gratitude their
assurances of the sympathy and support of that enlightened,
influential, and loyal class of my fellow citizens in an important
crisis which involves, in my judgment, not only the civil and
religious liberties of our own dear land, but in a large degree the
civil and religious liberties of mankind in many countries and
through many ages. You well know, gentlemen, and the world knows,
how reluctantly I accepted this issue of battle forced upon me on my
advent to this place by the internal enemies of our country. You all
know, the world knows, the forces and the resources the public agents
have brought into employment to sustain a government against which
there has been brought not one complaint of real injury committed
against society at home or abroad. You all may recollect that in
taking up the sword thus forced into our hands this government
appealed to the prayers of the pious and the good, and declared that
it placed its whole dependence on the favor of God. I now humbly and
reverently, in your presence, reiterate the acknowledgment of that
dependence, not doubting that, if it shall please the Divine Being
who determines the destinies of nations, this shall remain a united
people, and that they will, humbly seeking the divine guidance, make
their prolonged national existence a source of new benefits to
themselves and their successors, and to all classes and conditions of
mankind.
TELEGRAM TO FLAG-OFFICER L. M. GOLDSBOROUGH.
FORT MONROE, VIRGINIA, MAY 7, 1862
FLAG-OFFICER GOLDSBOROUGH.
SIR:--Major-General McClellan telegraphs that he has ascertained by a
reconnaissance that the battery at Jamestown has been abandoned, and
he again requests that gunboats may be sent up the James River.
If you have tolerable confidence that you can successfully contend
with the Merrimac without the help of the Galena and two accompanying
gunboats, send the Galena and two gunboats up the James River at
once. Please report your action on this to me at once. I shall be
found either at General Wool's headquarters or on board the Miami.
Your obedient servant,
A. LINCOLN.
FURTHER REPRIMAND OF McCLELLAN
TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN.
FORT MONROE, VIRGINIA, May 9, 1862
MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:
MY DEAR SIR:--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 divisions, 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, Heintzleman, 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?
When you relieved General Hamilton of his command the other day, you
thereby lost the confidence of at least one of your best friends in
the Senate. And here let me say, not as applicable to you
personally, that Senators and Representatives speak of me in their
places without question, and that officers of the army must cease
addressing insulting letters to them for taking no greater liberty
with them.
But to return. 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 very serious question
to you?
The success of your army and the cause of the country are the same,
and, of course, I only desire the good of the cause.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
TO FLAG-OFFICER L. M. GOLDSBOROUGH,
FORT MONROE, VIRGINIA, May 10, 1862
FLAG-OFFICER GOLDSBOROUGH.
MY DEAR SIR:--I send you this copy of your report of yesterday for
the purpose of saying to you in writing that you are quite right in
supposing the movement made by you and therein reported was made in
accordance with my wishes verbally expressed to you in advance. I
avail myself of the occasion to thank you for your courtesy and all
your conduct, so far as known to me, during my brief visit here.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
PROCLAMATION RAISING THE BLOCKADE OF CERTAIN
PORTS., May 12, 1862.
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A Proclamation.
Whereas, by my proclamation of the 19th of April, one thousand eight
hundred and sixty-one, it was declared that the ports of certain
States, including those of Beaufort, in the State of North Carolina,
Port Royal, in the State of South Carolina, and New Orleans, in the
State of Louisiana, were, for reasons therein set forth, intended to
be placed under blockade; and whereas the said ports of Beaufort,
Port Royal, and New Orleans have since been blockaded; but as the
blockade of the same ports may now be safely relaxed with advantage
to the interests of commerce:
Now, therefore, be it known that I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the
United States, pursuant to the authority in me vested by the fifth
section of the act of Congress approved on the 13th of July last,
entitled "An act further to provide for the collection of duties on
imports, and for other purposes," do hereby declare that the blockade
of the said ports of Beaufort, Port Royal, and New Orleans shall so
far cease and determine, from and after the first day of June next,
that commercial intercourse with those ports, except as to persons,
things, and information contraband of war, may from that time be
carried on, subject to the laws of the United States, and to the
limitations and in pursuance of the regulations which are prescribed
by the Secretary of the Treasury in his order of this date, which is
appended to this proclamation.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal
of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the city of Washington, this twelfth day of May, in the year
of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the
independence of the United States the eighty-sixth.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.
END OF VOLUME V.