Pass h 95-7. Book /^"^
eJ ^nz^f
COPKRIUHT DEPOSIT
LINCOLN IN 1861
From an Etching by T. Johnson after a Photograph bv Hesler
The photograph was used by the sculptor Leonard W. Volk in his studies for a bust of Lincoln
-
I Pr 1859
necdotes and Conversatioi
By F. B. '
and Speci
-DORE Roosevelt Charles E. Hv
Willi
H.
Managing Edii
■
oik
|
THE |
WORKS |
OF |
|
ABRAHAM |
LINCOLN |
Speeches and Presidential Addresses 1859— 1865
Anecdotes and Conversations of Lincoln
By F. B. Carpenter
Introductions and Special Articles by Theodore Roosevelt William H. Taft
Charles E. Hughes Joseph H. Choate
Henry Watterson Robert G. Ingersoll
And Others
Managing Editors JOHN H. CLIFFORD MARION M. MILLER
Volume V
THE UNIVERSITY SOCIETY INC,
NEW YORK
. S7
■ 9'
LIBRARY of CONGRESS Two Copies Received
_ 0<Wri»nt Entry
--.■
Copyright, 1907 By Current Literature Publishing Company
Copyright, 1908 By The University Society Inc.
CONTENTS
PAGE
Preface xiii
Introduction
Lincoln as Lawyer and Orator. By Joseph Hodges Choate . • . . . . . xv
Speeches (December i, 1859, to February 28, 1861.) Fragment of Speech at Leavenworth, Kansas.
December 5, 1859 I
Lecture Delivered before the Library Associa- tion of Springfield, Illinois. February 22, i860 2 Address at Cooper Union, New York. Feb- ruary 27, i860 ....... 14
Abstract of Speech at Kartford, Connecticut.
March 5, i860 -43
Speech at New Haven, Connecticut. March 5,
i860 50
Abstract of Speech at Norwich, Connecticut.
March 9, i860 76
Reply to the Committee Informing Him of His Nomination for President by the Chicago Con- vention. May 19, i860 . . . . .80 Acceptance of Nomination as President. May
23, i860 *. 80
[Platform of the Republican National Conven- tion held in Chicago, May 16-18, i860] . . 81 Remarks at Springfield, Illinois. August 14,
i860 84
Remarks at Springfield, Illinois, at a Celebration of His Election. November 20, i860 . . 85
Anonymous Editorial in the Illinois Journal. December 12, i860 . . . . . .86
Remarks to Springfield Neighbors on Leaving for Washington. February n, 1861 . . .86
vi CONTENTS
PAGE
Remarks at Indianapolis, Indiana. February n, 1861 87
Remarks to the Indiana Legislature, at Indian- apolis. February 12, 1861 88
Remarks at Reception by Mayor and Citizens
of Cincinnati, Ohio. February 12, 1861 . . 91
Remarks to Germans at Cincinnati, Ohio. Feb- ruary 12, 1861 94.
Remarks to the Ohio Legislature, at Columbus. February 13, 1861 96
Remarks at Steubenville, Ohio. February 14, 1861 97
Remarks at Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. February
15, 1861 98
Remarks at Cleveland, Ohio. February 15, 1861 102
Remarks at Buffalo, New York, February 16, 1861 105
Two-Minute Speeches. At Rochester, Syracuse, and Utica, New York. February 18, 1861 ; at Troy, Hudson, and Peekskill. February 19, 1861 107
Reply to Governor Morgan of New York, at Albany. February 18, 1861 .... 108
Remarks to the New York Legislature at Albany. February 18, 1861 .... 109
Remarks at Poughkeepsie, New York. Febru- ary 19, 1861 in
Remarks at New York City. Februarv 19, 1861 . 112 Reply to the Mayor of New York City. Febru- ary 20, 1861 114
Address to the Senate of New Jersey, at Tren- ton. February 21, 1861 . . . . .116
Address to the Assembly of New Jersey, at Trenton. February 21, 1861 . . . .117
Replv to the Mayor of Philadelphia. February
21, I*86l 119
CONTENTS vii
PAGE
Address on the Declaration of Independence. In Independence Hall. February 22, 1861 . . 121
Address on Raising a Flag over Independence Hall, Philadelphia. February 22, 1861 . . 123
Reply to Governor Curtin of Pennsylvania, at Harrisburg. February 22, 1861 . . . 124
Address to the Legislature of Pennsylvania, at Harrisburg. February 22, 1861 . . 125
Reply to the Mayor of Washington, D. C. February 27, 1861 128
Reply to a Serenade at Washington, D. C. Feb- ruary 28, 1861 129
Presidential Addresses (Mar. 4, 1861, to April 11, 1865) First Inaugural Address. March 4, 1861 . . 133
Remarks upon Sectionalism to Pennsylvania and Massachusetts Delegations. March 5, 1861 . 147
Remarks on Executive Policy to a Committee from the Virginia Convention. April 13, 1861 . 148
Conference on Compensated Emancipation with Border State Delegations. March 10, 1862 . 150
Response to Evangelical Lutherans on Depen- dence upon Divine Guidance. May 6, 1862 . 156
Remarks to the Twelfth Indiana Regiment. On the Nation's Dependence on the Army. May 15, 1862 157
Appeal to Border-State Representatives to Favor Compensated Emancipation. July 12, 1862 . 158
Remarks on the McClellan-Stanton Controversy. Made at a Union Meeting in Washington. August 6, 1862 161
Address to a Deputation of Colored Men on Colonization. August 14, 1862 .... 163
Remarks on Premature Emancipation to Repre- sentatives of the Churches of Chicago. Septem- ber 13, 1862 170
viii CONTENTS
PAGE
Remarks on Making the Emancipation Proc- lamation Effective, in Response to a Serenade. September 24, 1862 174
Remarks on the Divine Will, in Reply to an Address by Mrs. Gurney. September 28, 1862 . 175
Meditation on the Divine Will. September 30, 1862 ■ . .176
Remarks on Benefits of the Union, Made at Frederick, Maryland. October 4, 1862 . . 176
Remarks on the Subordination of the Adminis- tration to the Government. Made to Members of the Presbyterian General Assembly. May 30, 1863 1/7
Remarks on Notable Fourths of July, in Re- sponse to a Serenade. July 7, 1863 . . . 179
Remarks on Temperance in the Army to a Dele- gation of the Sons of Temperance. September 29, 1863 180
Address at the Dedication of the National Ceme- tery at Gettysburg. November 19, 1863 . . 182
Address to General Grant on Commissioning Him Lieutenant-General, with General Grant's Response. March 9, 1864 183
Remarks on the Women of America, Made at a Sanitary Fair in Washington. March 18,
1864 184
Remarks on the Interest of Labor in Respect- ing Rights of Property, to a Committee of New York Workingmen. March 24, 1864 . . 185 Address on the Definition of Liberty and the Reported Massacre of Negro Troops at Fort Pillow, Made at a Sanitary Fair in Baltimore,
April 18, 1864 . 187
Remarks on General Grant, in Response to a
Serenade. May 9, 1864 190
Replies to Methodist and Baptist Delegations.
May 14, 1864 191
Reply to the Committee Notifying President Lincoln of His Renomination, with the Plat-
CONTENTS ix
PAGE
form of the Convention Nominating Him. June
9, 1864 192
Remarks on Support of the Army, to an Ohio Delegation. June 9, 1864 196
Remarks on Swapping Horses in Midstream, to a Delegation from the National Union League. June 9, 1864 196
Remarks to an Ohio Regiment. June 11, 1864 . 197
Remarks on the Progress of the War, at a Sani- tary Fair in Philadelphia. June 16, 1864 . . 198
Remarks on Amity with Italy, Made in Receiv- ing Commander Bertinatti as Italian Envoy Extraordinary. July 23, 1864 .... 201
Remarks on Democratic Strategy to Governor Randall and Others. August 15, 1864 . . 202
Remarks on Inequalities of Taxation, to the 164th Ohio Regiment. August 18, 1864 . . 204
Remarks on the Value of American Citizenship, Made to the 166th Ohio Regiment. August 22, 1864 205
An Appeal to the Soldiers to Resist Disaffection, Made to the 148th Ohio Regiment. August 31, 1864 206
Remarks on Venezuela, Made in Receiving Minister Bruzual. September 5, 1864 . . 208
Remarks upon the Holy Scriptures in Receiving the Present of a Bible from a Negro Delegation. September 7, 1864 209
Remarks on the Abolition of Slavery in Mary- land, in Response to a Serenade. October 19, 1864 210
Remarks on Voting as You Fight, Made to the 189th New York Regiment. October 24, 1864 . 212
Remarks on Election Day, in Response to a Serenade. November 9, 1864 .... 213
Remarks on the Benefits of the Elective System,
in Response to a Serenade. November 10, 1864 . 214
CONTENTS
Remarks on Maryland's Free Constitution, to the Maryland Union Committee. November 17, 1864
Remarks on Sherman's March to the Sea, in Response to a Serenade. December 6, 1864
Remarks on Edward Everett to a Committee Presenting a Souvenir of Gettysburg. January 24, 1865
Remarks on the Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Slavery, in Response to a Serenade. January 31, 1865
The Hampton Roads Conference. February 3, 1865
Acceptance of the Office of President, Made to a Notification Committee of Congress. Febru- ary 9. 1865
Second Inaugural Address. March 4, 1865
Remarks on the Employment of Negroes in the Confederate Army, Made to an Indiana Regi- ment. March 17, 1865
Speech on the Reconstruction of the Southern States. April 11, 1865
page
216
217
218
219
222 223
225
227
Conversations and Anecdotes
The History of the Emancipation Proclamation 237
Signinsr the Emancipation Proclamation
Interview with George Thompson
On Threats of Assassination .
On Critics of the Administration
Lincoln at the Soldiers' Home
On Shakespeare
Lincoln's Purity of Heart
Lincoln's Tenderness of Heart
Lincoln the Pardoner
The Amnesty Proclamation
. 241
• 243 . 245 . 247 . 250 . 252
• 254
• 255 . 256
• 259
CONTENTS
"The Scoundrel Will Get Off" .
"Public Opinion Baths"
Lincoln's Magnanimity
A Short Statute
Lincoln's Treatment of Insolence
"The Delegation from the Almighty'
On a Time-serving Clergyman
Lincoln's Paternal Love .
The Death of Willie Lincoln
Lincoln the Christian
On the Lord's Side .
The President and the "Powder Monkey'
Lincoln and the Negroes .
The Two Ruling Ideas of Lincoln's Life
Lincoln's Temperance Principles
No Vices, Few Virtues
Lincoln's Democratic Habits
Presidential Perquisites .
Lincoln's Personal Appearance
Lincoln's First Dollar
Lincoln's First Big Fee
Hannibal's Treasury
On Wall Street
Lincoln's Love of Humor .
"A Yard Full of Bulls" .
Instructions to Counsel
Close Construction \
Diplomatic Advice .
Setting Him at Ease
Democratic Abutments
CONTENTS
PAGE
Lincoln's Influence with the Administration . 294
Another Ward Heard From .... 295
Weeping Water 296
"Apple Overboard!" 296
"Sitting on the Blister" ..... 297
Sorry to Lose the Horses ..... 297
The Strength of the Confederate Forces . . 298
Chase's "Chin-fly" 298
Appointment of Chase as Chief Justice . . 299
Fremont's Cave of Adullam .... 300
Grant's Brand of Whiskey .... 301
On McClellan's Engineering Propensities . . 301
Borrowing McClellan's Army .... 301
A Convenient Escape 302
The Last Cabinet Meeting .... 303
Tad's Grief at His Father's Death . . . 304
PREFACE
The opening speeches of the present volume were made by Lincoln when he had come to be recognized as a national leader of the Republican party. He delivered them in a tour of Kansas, late in 1859, anc* in a tour of New York City and neighboring New England cities early in i860. At the Cooper Institute in New York he delivered the most carefully prepared address of his career. It also proved to be the most mo- mentous, for it removed the impression, general in the East, that Lincoln was a typical Western "rough-and-tumble" orator, and gave him equal standing as a serious exponent of his party's prin- ciples with Seward, then the leading Republican candidate for the coming nomination for the Presidency.
Lincoln, while Presidential nominee, delivered only a single speech, a few modest remarks in his own city. At this time Senator Douglas, his chief competitor for the office, was touring the country, endeavoring by personal appeal to stem the current of popular approval of Lincoln's policies.
Lincoln's speeches as President elect were disappointing to many ; but he considered it the part of wisdom to temporize on issues that were tearing the country asunder, till he was firmly established in his office. In such speeches as "Nothing is Going Wrong," and "The Crisis is
xiv PREFACE
Artificial," he exposed himself to the ridicule of his enemies, and to the censure of many of his •earnest supporters.
On the other hand, the Presidential speeches are admirable in every respect. From the im- promptu replies to serenades, to the immortal address at Gettysburg and the sublime second in- augural, the President's utterances possess that supreme quality of oratory, the perfect adapta- tion of word and sentiment to the spirit and needs of the occasion.
The Conversations and Anecdotes that close the volume form a logical appendix to the speeches in their revelation of Lincoln's genius and character. And since they relate particularly to the crucial period of his statesmanship, when he was planning and executing the Emancipation Proclamation, they serve even more fittingly as an introduction to the State Papers presented in the succeeding volume of the series.
INTRODUCTION
Lincoln as Lawyer and Orator.
By Joseph Hodges Choate.
At the age of twenty-five Lincoln became a member of the Legislature of Illinois, and he so continued for eight years, and in the meantime qualified himself by reading such law books as he could borrow at random — for he was too poor to buy any — to be called to the bar. For his second, quarter of a century — during which a single term in Congress introduced him into the arena of na- tional questions — he gave himself up to law and politics. In spite of his soaring ambition, his two years in Congress gave him no premoni- tion of the great destiny that awaited him, and at its close, in 1849, we ^n(^ mm an unsuccessful applicant to the President for appointment as Commissioner of the General Land Office, a purely administrative bureau — a fortunate escape for himself and his country. Year by year his knowledge and power, his experience and reputa- tion extended, and his mental faculties seemed to grow by what they fed on. His power of per- suasion, which had always been marked, was de- veloped to an extraordinary degree, now that he became engaged in congenial questions and sub- jects. Little by little he rose to prominence at the bar, and became the most effective public speaker in the West. Not that he possessed any of the
xvi INTRODUCTION
graces of the orator, but his logic was invincible, and his clearness and force of statement im- pressed upon his hearers the convictions of his honest mind, while his broad sympathies and sparkling and genial humor made him a universal favorite as far and as fast as his acquaintance ex- tended.
growth of Lincoln's influence
These twenty years that elapsed from the time of his establishment as a lawyer and legislator in Springfield, the new capital of Illinois, furnished a fitting theatre for the development and display of his great faculties, and with his new and en- larged opportunities he obviously grew in mental stature in this second period of his career, as if to compensate for the absolute lack of advantages under which he had suffered in youth. As his powers enlarged, his reputation extended, for he was always before the people, felt a warm sym- pathy with all that concerned them, took a zealous part in the discussion of every public question, and made his personal influence ever more widely and deeply felt.
CONDITIONS IN ILLINOIS
When Lincoln began practising law in Spring- field, in 1837, life in Illinois was very crude and simple, and so were the courts and the administra- tion of justice. Books and libraries were scarce. But the people loved justice, upheld the law, and followed the courts, and soon found their favorites among the advocates. The fundamental prin- ciples of the common law, as set forth by Black- stone and Chitty, were not so difficult to acquire,
INTRODUCTION xvn
and brains, common sense, force of character, tenacity of purpose, ready wit, and power of speech did the rest, and supplied all the deficien- cies of learning.
The lawsuits of those days were extremely sim- ple, and the principles of natural justice were mainly relied on to dispose of them at the bar and on the bench, without resort to technical learning. Railroads, corporations absorbing the chief business of the community, combined and inherited wealth, with all the subtle and intricate questions they breed, had not yet come in — and so the professional agents and the equipment which they require were not needed. But there were many highly educated and powerful men at the bar of Illinois, even in those early days, whom the spirit of enterprise had carried there in search of fame and fortune. It was by constant contact and conflict with these that Lincoln acquired pro- fessional strength and skill. Every community and every age creates its own bar, entirely ade- quate for its present uses and necessities. So in Illinois, as the population and wealth of the State kept on doubling and quadrupling, its bar repre- sented a growing abundance of learning and science and technical skill. The early prac- titioners grew with its growth and mastered the requisite knowledge.
LAW AND POLITICS
In those early days in the West, every lawyer, especially every court lawyer, was necessarily a politician, constantly engaged in the public dis- cussion of the many questions evolved from the rapid development of town, county, State, and
xviii INTRODUCTION
Federal affairs. Then and there, in this regard, public discussion supplied the place which the universal activity of the press has since monopo- lized, and the public speaker who, by clearness^ force, earnestress, and wit, could make himself felt on the questions of the day would readily come to the front. In the absence of that im- mense variety of popular entertainments which now feed the public taste and appetite, the people found their chief amusement in frequenting the courts and public and political assemblies. In either place he who impressed, entertained, and amused them most was the hero of the hour. They did not discriminate very carefully between the eloquence of the forum and the eloquence of the hustings. Human nature ruled in both alike, and he who was the most effective speaker in a political harangue was often retained as most likely to win in a cause to be tried or argued.
HIGHER AMBITION
I have no doubt in this way many retainers came to Lincoln. Fees, money in any form, had no charms for him ; in his eager pursuit of fame he could not afford to make money. He was am- bitious to distinguish himself by some great ser- vice to mankind, and this ambition for fame and real public service left no room for avarice in his composition. However much he earned, he seemed to have ended every year hardly richer than he began it, and yet as the years passed fees came to him freely. One of $5,000 is recorded — a very large professional fee at that time, even in any part of America, the paradise of lawyers. I lay great stress on Lincoln's career as a lawyer
INTRODUCTION xix
— much more than his biographers do — because in America the profession of thklaw always has been, and is to this day, the principal avenue to public life, and I am sure that his training and ex- perience in the courts had much m do with the development of those forces of intellect and char- acter which he soon displayed on a bloader arena.
LINCOLN ON THE PLATFORM \
After his great successes in the West Lincoln came to New York to make a political address. He appeared in every sense of the word like one of the plain people among whom he loved to be counted. At first sight there was nothing im- pressive or imposing about him — except that his great stature singled him out from the crowd; his clothes hung awkwardly on his giant frame, his face was of a dark pallor, without the slight- est tinge of color ; his seamed and rugged fea- tures bore the furrows of hardship and struggle ; his deep-set eyes looked sad and anxious ; his countenance in repose gave little evidence of that brain power which had raised him from the low- est to the highest station among his countrymen. As he talked to me before the meeting he seemed ill at ease, with that sort of apprehension which a young man might feel before presenting himself to a new and strange audience whose critical dis- position he dreaded.
THE COOPER INSTITUTE ADDRESS
It was a great audience, including all the noted men — all the learned and cultured — of his party in New York ; editors, clergymen, states-
xx INTRODUCTION
men, lawyers, nerchants, critics. They were all very curious to hear him. His fame as a power- ful speaker hid preceded him, and exaggerated rumor of his wit had reached the East, \\hen Mr. Bryant presented him on the high platform of the Coorer Institute a vast sea of eager, up- turned faces greeted him, full of intense curiosity to see wh?t this rude child of the people was like. He was equal to the occasion. When he spoke he was transformed; his eye kindled, his voice rang his face shone and seemed to light up the whole assembly. For an hour and a half he held his audience in the hollow of his hand. His style of speech and manner of delivery were se- verely simple. What Lowell called "the grand simplicities of the Bible," with which he was so familiar, were reflected in his discourse. With no attempt at ornament or rhetoric, without pa- rade or pretence, he spoke straight to the point. If any came expecting the turgid eloquence or the ribaldry of the frontier they must have been startled at the earnest and sincere purity of his utterances. It was marvelous to see how this untutored man, by mere self-discipline and the chastening of his own spirit, had outgrown all meretricious arts, and found his way to the grandeur and strength of absolute simplicity.
He spoke upon the theme which he had mas- tered so thoroughly. He demonstrated by co- pious historical proofs and masterly logic that the fathers who created the Constitution in order to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, and to secure the blessings of liberty to them- selves and their posterity, intended to empower the Federal Government to exclude slavery from the Territories. In the kindliest spirit, he pro-
INTRODUCTION xxi
tested against the avowed threat of the Southern States to destroy the Union if, in order to secure freedom in those vast regions, out of which future States were to be carved, a Republican President were elected.
THE ORATOR CROWNED
He closed with an appeal to his audience, spoken with all the fire of his aroused and kin- dling conscience, with a full outpouring of his love of justice and liberty, to maintain their political purpose on that lofty and unassailable issue of right and wrong which alone could justify it, and not to be intimidated from their high resolve and sacred duty by any threats of destruction to the Government or of ruin to themselves. He con- cluded with this telling sentence, which drove the whole argument home to all hearts :
"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."
That night the great hall, and the next day the whole city, rang with delighted applause and con- gratulations, and he who had come as a stranger departed with the laurels of a great triumph.
SPEECHES AND PRESIDEN- TIAL ADDRESSES
(1859-1865) The Treason of Secession.
Fragment of Speech at Leavenworth, Kan. December 5, 1859.
In response to invitations from Republicans of Kansas Mr. Lincoln made a tour of that Territory from December 1 to 5, 1859, speaking at Elwood, Troy, Doniphan, Atchison, and Leavenworth. As indicated by notes left by Mr. Lincoln, the substance of these addresses is largely that of those delivered in Ohio in the autumn. The speaker took the popular sovereignty theory of Senator Douglas for his target, and riddled it with shafts of piercing argument and irony, showing that its essential principle was : "If one man would enslave another, neither that other nor any third man has a right to object." The following is a fragment delivered at Leavenworth :
But you Democrats are for the Union ; and you greatly fear the success of the Republicans would destroy the Union. Why ? Do the Repub- licans 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
2 SPEECHES EFeb. 22
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 sec- tion will a majority so act as to render such extreme measures necessary.
Lecture on "Discoveries, Inventions, and Improvements."
Delivered before the Springfield Library Association, Springfield, III. February 22, i860.*
We have all heard of Young America. He is the most current youth of the age. Some think him conceited and arrogant; but has he not reason to entertain a rather extensive opinion of himself? Is he not the inventor and owner of the present, and sole hope of the future? Men and things, everywhere, are ministering unto him. Look at his apparel, and you shall see cotton fabrics from Manchester and Lowell; flax linen from Ireland; wool cloth from Spain; silk from France ; furs from the Arctic region ; wTith a buffalo-robe from the Rocky Mountains, as a general outsider. At his table, besides plain bread and meat made at home, are sugar from
* This speech had been delivered in whole or in part in neighboring towns during the previous year.
i860] LECTURE ON INVENTIONS 3
Louisiana, coffee and fruits from the tropics, salt from Turk's Island, fish from Newfound- land, tea from China, and spices from the Indies. The whale of the Pacific furnishes his candle- light, he has a diamond ring from Brazil, a gold watch from California, and a Spanish cigar from Havana. He not only has a present supply of all these, and much more; but thousands of hands are engaged in producing fresh supplies, and other thousands in bringing them to him. The iron horse is panting and impatient to carry him everywhere in no time ; and the lightning stands ready harnessed to take and bring his tid- ings in a trifle less than no time. He owns a large part of the world, by right of possessing it, and all the rest by right of wanting it, and in- tending to have it. As Plato had for the im- mortality of the soul, so Young America has "a pleasing hope, a fond desire — a longing after" territory. He has a great passion — a perfect rage — for the "new"; particularly new men for office, and the new earth mentioned in the Rev- elations, in which, being no more sea, there must be about three times as much land as in the present. He is a great friend of humanity; and his desire for land is not selfish, but merely an impulse to extend the area of freedom. He is very anxious to fight for the liberation of en- slaved nations and colonies, provided, always, they have land, and have not any liking for his interference. As to those who have no land, and would be glad of help from any quarter, he considers they can afford to wait a few hundred years longer. In knowledge he is particularly rich. He knows all that can possibly be known ; inclines to believe in spiritual rappings, and is
4 SPEECHES [Feb. 22
the unquestioned inventor of "Manifest Des- tiny." His horror is for all that is old, particu- larly "Old Fogy"; and if there be anything old which he can endure, it is only old whisky and old tobacco.
If the said Young America really is, as he claims to be, the owner of all present, it must be admitted that he has considerable advantage of Old Fogy. Take, for instance, the first of all fogies, Father Adam. There he stood, a very perfect physical man, as poets and painters in- form us ; but he must have been very ignorant, and simple in his habits. He had had no suf- ficient time to learn much by observation, and he had no near neighbors to teach him anything. No part of his breakfast had been brought from the other side of the world ; and it is quite proba- ble he had no conception of the world having any other side. In all these things, it is very plain, he was no equal of Young America ; the most that can be said is, that according to his chance he may have been quite as much of a man as his very self-complacent descendant. Little as was what he knew, let the youngster discard all he has learned from others, and then show, if he can, any advantage on his side. In the way of land and live-stock, Adam was quite in the ascendant. He had dominion over all the earth, and all the living things upon and round about it. The land has been sadly divided out since ; but never fret, Young America will re- annex it.
The great difference between Young America and Old Fogy is the result of discoveries, inven- tions, and improvements. These, in turn, are the result of observation, reflection, and experi-
i860] LECTURE ON INVENTIONS 5
ment. For instance, it is quite certain that ever since water has been boiled in covered vessels, men have seen the lids of the vessels rise and fall a little, with a sort of fluttering motion, by force of the steam; but so long as this was not specially observed, and reflected, and experi- mented upon, it came to nothing. At length, however, after many thousand years, some man observes this long-known effect of hot water lift- ing a pot-lid, and begins a train of reflection upon it. He says, "Why, to be sure, the force that lifts the pot-lid will lift anything else which is no heavier than the pot-lid. And as man has much hard fighting to do, cannot this hot-water power be made to help him?" He has become a little excited on the subject, and he fancies he hears a voice answering, "Try me." He does try it ; and the observation, reflection, and trial give to the world the control of that tremendous and now well-known agent called steam-power. This is not the actual history in detail, but the general principle.
But was this first inventor of the application of steam wiser or more ingenious than those who had gone before him ? Not at all. Had he not learned much of those, he never would have succeeded, probably never would have thought of making the attempt. To be fruitful in in- vention, it is indispensable to have a habit of ob- servation and reflection ; and this habit our steam friend acquired, no doubt, from those who, to him, were old fogies. But for the dif- ference in habit of observation, why did Yankees almost instantly discover gold in California, which had been trodden upon and overlooked by Indians and Mexican greasers for centuries?
6 SPEECHES [Feb. 22
Gold-mines are not the only mines overlooked in the same way. There are more mines above the earth's surface than below it. All nature — the whole world, material, moral, and intellectual — ■ is a mine ; and in Adam's day it was a wholly un- explored mine. Now, it was the destined work of Adam's race to develop, by discoveries, inven- tions, and improvements, the hidden treasures of this mine. But Adam had nothing to turn his attention to the work. If he should do anything in the way of inventions, he had first to invent the art of invention, the instance, at least, if not the habit, of observation and reflection. As might be expected, he seems not to have been a very observing man at first; for it appears he went about naked a considerable length of time before he ever noticed that obvious fact. But when he did observe it, the observation was not lost upon him ; for it immediately led to the first of all inventions of which we have any direct ac-' count — the fig-leaf apron.
The inclination to exchange thoughts with one another is probably an original impulse of our nature. If I be in pain, I wish to let you know it, and to ask your sympathy and assistance ; and my pleasurable emotions also I wish to com- municate to and share with you. But to carry on such communications, some instrumentality is indispensable. Accordingly, speech — articulate sounds rattled off from the tongue — was used by our first parents, and even by Adam before the creation of Eve. He gave names to the animals while she was still a bone in his side; and he broke out quite volubly when she first stood before him, the best present of his Maker. From this it would appear that speech was not
i860] LECTURE ON INVENTIONS 7
an invention of man, but rather the direct gift of his Creator. But whether divine gift or inven- tion, it is still plain that if a mode of communica- tion had been left to invention, speech must have been the first, from the superior adaptation to the end of the organs of speech over every other means within the whole range of nature. Of the organs of speech the tongue is the principal ; and if we shall test it, we shall find the capacities of the tongue, in the utterance of articulate sounds, absolutely wonderful. You can count from one to one hundred quite distinctly in about forty seconds. In doing this two hundred and eighty-three distinct sounds or syllables are uttered, being seven to each second, and yet there should be enough difference between every two to be easily recognized by the ear of the hearer. What other signs to represent things could pos- sibly be produced so rapidly? or, even if ready made, could be arranged so rapidly to express the sense? Motions with the hands are no adequate substitute. Marks for the recognition of the eye, — writing, — although a wonderful auxiliary of speech, is no worthy substitute for it. In addi- tion to the more slow and laborious process of getting up a communication in writing, the mate- rials— pen, ink, and paper — are not always at hand. But one always has his tongue with him, and the breath of his life is the ever-ready mate- rial with which it works. Speech, then, by enabling different individuals to interchange thoughts, and thereby to combine their powers of observation and reflection, greatly facilitates use- ful discoveries and inventions. What one ob- serves, and would himself infer nothing from, he tells to another, and that other at once sees a
8 SPEECHES [Feb. 22
valuable hint in it. A result is thus reached which neither alone would have arrived at. And this reminds me of what I passed unnoticed be- fore, that the very first invention was a joint operation, Eve having shared with Adam the get- ting up of th^ apron. And, indeed, judging from the fact that sewing has come down to our times as "woman's work," it is very probable she took the leading part, — he, perhaps, doing no more than to stand by and thread the needle. That proceeding may be reckoned as the mother of all "sewing-societies," and the first and most perfect "World's Fair," all inventions and all inventors then in the world being on the spot.
But speech alone, valuable as it ever has been and is, has not advanced the condition of the world much. This is abundantly evident when we look at the degraded condition of all those tribes of human creatures who have no consider- able additional means of communicating thoughts. Writing, the art of communicating thoughts to the mind through the eye, is the great invention of the world. Great is the astonishing range of analysis and combination which necessarily un- derlies the most crude and general conception of it — great, very great, in enabling us to converse with the dead, the absent, and the unborn, at all distances of time and space ; and great, not only in its direct benefits, but greatest help to all other inventions. Suppose the art, with all concep- tions of it, were this day lost to the world, how long, think you, would it be before Young America could get up the letter A with any ade- quate notion of using it to advantage ? The pre- cise period at which writing was invented is not known, but it certainly was as early as the time
i860] LECTURE ON INVENTIONS g
of Moses ; from which we may safely infer that its inventors were very old fogies.
Webster, at the time of writing his dictionary, speaks of the English language as then consisting of seventy or eighty thousand words. If so, the language in which the five books of Moses were written must at that time, now thirty-three or -four hundred years ago, have consisted of at least one quarter as many, or twenty thousand. When we remember that words are sounds merely, we shall conclude that the idea of rep- resenting those sounds by marks, so that who- ever should at any time after see the marks would understand what sounds they meant, was a bold and ingenious conception, not likely to occur to one man in a million in the run of a thousand years. And when it did occur, a distinct mark for each word, giving twenty thousand different marks first to be learned, and afterward to be remem- bered, would follow as the second thought, and would present such a difficulty as would lead to the conclusion that the whole thing was imprac- ticable. But the necessity still would exist ; and we may readily suppose that the idea was con- ceived, and lost, and reproduced, and dropped, and taken up again and again, until at last the thought of dividing sounds into parts, and mak- ing a mark, not to represent a whole sound, but only a part of one, and then of combining those marks, not very many in number, upon principles of permutation, so as to represent any and all of the whole twenty thousand words, and even any additional number, was somehow conceived and pushed into practice. This was the invention of phonetic writing, as distinguished from the clumsy picture-writing of some of the nations.
IO SPEECHES [Feb. 22
That it was difficult of conception and execution is apparent, as well by the foregoing reflection, as the fact that so many tribes of men have come down from Adam's time to our own without ever having possessed it. Its utility may be conceived by the reflection that to it we owe everything which distinguishes us from savages. Take it from us, and the Bible, all history, all science, all government, all commerce, and nearly all social intercourse go with it.
The great activity of the tongue in articulating sounds has already been mentioned, and it may be of some passing interest to notice the wonderful power of the eye in conveying ideas to the mind from writing. Take the same example of the numbers from one to one hundred written down, and you can run your eye over the list, and be assured that every number is in it, in about one half the time it would require to pronounce the words with the voice; and not only so, but you can in the same short time determine whether every word is spelled correctly, by which it is evident that every separate letter, amounting to eight hundred and sixty-four, has been recog- nized and reported to the mind within the incredi- bly short space of twenty seconds, or one third of a minute.
I have already intimated my opinion that in the world's history certain inventions and discoveries occurred of peculiar value, on account of their great efficiency in facilitating all other inventions and discoveries. Of these were the art of writ- ing and of printing, the discovery of America, and the introduction of patent laws. The date of the first, as already stated, is unknown; but it cer- tainly was as much as fifteen hundred years be-
i860] LECTURE ON INVENTIONS n
fore the Christian era ; the second — printing — came in 1436, or nearly three thousand years after the first. The others followed more rapidly — the discovery of America in 1492, and the first patent laws in 1624. Though not apposite to my present purpose, it is but justice to the fruitf ill- ness of that period to mention two other import- ant events — the Lutheran Reformation in 1517, and, still earlier, the invention of negroes, or of the present mode of using them, in 1434. But to return to the consideration of printing, it is plain that it is but the other half, and in reality the bet- ter half, of writing; and that both together are but the assistants of speech in the communication of thoughts between man and man. When man was possessed of speech alone, the chances of in- vention, discovery, and improvement were very limited ; but by the introduction of each of these they were greatly multiplied. When writing was invented, any important observation likely to lead to a discovery had at least a chance of being written down, and consequently a little chance of never being forgotten, and of being seen and re- flected upon by a much greater number of per- sons ; and thereby the chances of a valuable hint being caught proportionately augmented. By this means the observation of a single individual might lead to an important invention years, and even centuries, after he was dead. In one word, by means of writing, the seeds of invention were more permanently preserved and more widely sown. And yet for three thousand years during which printing remained undiscovered after writing was in use, it was only a small portion of the people who could write, or read writing ; and consequently the field of invention, though much
j 2 SPEECHES [Feb. 22
extended, still continued very limited. At length printing came. It gave ten thousand copies of any written matter quite as cheaply as ten were given before ; and consequently a thousand minds were brought into the field where there was but one before. This was a great gain — and history shows a great change corresponding to it — in point of time.
I will venture to consider it the true termina- tion of that period called "the dark ages." Dis- coveries, inventions, and improvements followed rapidly, and have been increasing their rapidity ever since. The effects could not come all at once. It required time to bring them out ; and they are still coming. The capacity to read could not be multiplied as fast as the means of reading. Spelling-books just began to go into the hands of the children, but the teachers were not very numerous or very competent, so that it is safe to infer they did not advance so speedily as they do nowadays. It is very probable — almost certain — that the great mass of men at that time were utterly unconscious that their condition or their minds were capable of improvement. They not only looked upon the educated few as superior beings, but they supposed themselves to be natu- rally incapable of rising to equality. To emanci- pate the mind from this false underestimate of itself is the great task which printing came into the world to perform. It is difficult for us now and here to conceive how strong this slavery of the mind was, and how long it did of necessity take to break its shackles, and to get a habit of freedom of thought established. It is, in this connection, a curious fact that a new country is most favorable — almost necessary — to the eman-
i860] LECTURE ON INVENTIONS 13
cipation of thought, and the consequent advance- ment of civilization and the arts. The human family originated, as is thought, somewhere in Asia, and have worked their way principally westward. Just now in civilization and the arts the people of Asia are entirely behind those of Europe ; those of the east of Europe behind those of the west of it; while we, here, in America, think we discover, and invent, and improve faster than any of them. They may think this is ar- rogance ; but they cannot deny that Russia has called on us to show her how to build steamboats and railroads, while in the older parts of Asia they scarcely know that such things as steam- boats and railroads exist. In anciently inhabited countries, the dust of ages — a real, downright old-fogyism — seems to settle upon and smother the intellect and energies of man. It is in this view that I have mentioned the discovery of America as an event greatly favoring and facili- tating useful discoveries and inventions. Next came the patent laws. These began in England in 1624, and in this country with the adoption of our Constitution. Before then any man [might] instantly use what another man had in- vented, so that the inventor had no special ad- vantage from his invention. The patent system changed this, secured to the inventor for a limited time exclusive use of his inventions, and thereby added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius in the discovery and production of new and useful things.
I4 SPEECHES IFeb. 27
Slavery as the Fathers Viewed It.
Address at Cooper Union, New York. Feb- ruary 27, i860.
Mr. President and Fellow-citizens of Nezv 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 in- ferences and observations following that pres- entation. In his speech last autumn at Colum- bus, 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 fur- nishes 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 Constitu- tion 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.
W7ho were our fathers that framed the Con- stitution? I suppose the "thirty-nine" who
i860] AT COOPER UNION 15
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 senti- ment 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 under- stood "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 Con- stitution, forbid our Federal Government to con- trol as to slavery in our Federal Territories?
Upon this, Senator Douglas holds the affirma- tive, and Republicans the negative. This affirma- tion 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, ever acted upon this question; and if they did, how they acted upon it— how they ex- pressed 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 Con- stitution were in that Congress, and voted
* The bill was reported by Thomas Jefferson. It pro- hibited slavery after 1800 above the parallel of 31 nortn latitude. It failed to pass by one vote.
16 SPEECHES [Feb. 27
on that question. Of these, Roger Sherman, Thomas Mifflin, and Hugh Williamson voted for the prohibition, thus showing that, in their under- standing, 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 im- proper 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 ques- tion. 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 any- thing else, properly forbade the Federal Govern- ment 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
i860] AT COOPER UNION 17
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 with- out a word of opposition, and finally passed both branches without ayes and nays, which is equiv- alent 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. John- son, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Thos. Fitzsimmons, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, William Pater son, George Clymer, Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll, and James Madison.
This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from Federal authority, nor any- thing in the Constitution, properly forbade Con- gress to prohibit slavery in the Federal territory ; else both their fidelity to correct principle, 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 divid- ing local from Federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Govern- ment 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 con-
18 SPEECHES [Feb. 27
stituting 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 giv- ing 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 Consti- tution. 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 under- standing, any line dividing local from Federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, prop- erly 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
* The cession by North Carolina was accepted by Congress in 1790; that by Georgia in 1798.
i860] at cooper union i9
now constitutes the State of Louisiana. New Orleans, lying within that part, was an old and comparatively large city. There were other con- siderable 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 ex- tensive way than they did in the case of Mississ- ippi. The substance of the provision therein made in relation to slaves was :
ist. That no slave should be imported into the Territory from foreign parts.
2d. That no slave should be carried into it who had been imported into the United States since the first day of May, 1798.
3d. 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 ayes or nays. In the Congress which passed it there were two of the "thirty-nine." They were Abraham Bald- win 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
20 SPEECHES XFeb. 2^
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 divid- ing local from Federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, was violated by Congress prohibiting slavery in Federal territory; while Mr. Pinckney, by his votes, 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 dis- cover.
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-
i860] AT COOPER UNION 21
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 Gov- ernment 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 responsibility speak still louder.
Two of the twenty-three voted against con- gressional 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 Constitu- tion can conscientiously vote for what he under- stands to be an unconstitutional measure, how- ever 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 Constitu- tion, 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
22 SPEECHES [Feb. 27
their understanding upon the direct question of Federal control of slavery in the Federal Ter- ritories. 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 mani- fested at all.
For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I have purposely omitted whatever understand- ing 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 mani- fested by any of the ' 'thirty-nine" even on any other phase of the general question of slavery. If we should look into their acts and declara- tions 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 antislavery men of those times, — as Dr. Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and Gou- verneur 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 — cer- tainly understood that no proper division of local from Federal authority, nor any part of the Con- stitution, forbade the Federal Government to control slavery in the Federal Territories; while
i860] AT COOPER UNION 23
all the rest had probably the same understanding. Such, unquestionably, was the understanding of our fathers who framed the original Constitu- tion; and the text affirms that they understood the question "better than we."
But, so far, I have been considering the under- standing 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 Con- stitution, 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 pro- vides 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, pro- viding 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 Ter- ritory. 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
24 SPEECHES [Feb. 27
the session, had under consideration, and in prog- ress toward maturity, these constitutional amend- ments, and this act prohibiting slavery in all the territory the nation then owned. The constitu- tional 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, in- cluding sixteen of the framers of the original Constitution, as before stated, were preeminently our fathers who framed that part of "the gov- ernment 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 ma- turity at the same time, are absolutely incon- sistent 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 understand-
1
i860] AT COOPER UNION 25
ing, any proper division of local from Federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, for- bade 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 whole world ever did, prior to the be- ginning of the present century (and I might al- most say prior to the beginning of the last half of the present century), declare that, in his under- standing, any proper division of local from Fed- eral 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 weigh, 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 a proper division of local from Federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbids the Fed-
26 SPEECHES [Feb. 27
eral 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 govern- ment under which we live" were of the same opinion — thus substituting falsehood and decep- tion 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 under- stand that a proper division of local from Federal authority, or some part of the Constitution, for- bids 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 "under- stood 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 rela- tion to slavery. As those fathers marked it, so let it be again marked, as an evil not to be ex- tended, but to be tolerated and protected only because of and so far as its actual presence among us makes that toleration and protection a neces-
i860] AT COOPER UNION 27
sity. Let all the guaranties those fathers gave it be not grudgingly, but fully and fairly, main- tained. 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 and murderers, but nothing like it to "Black Republicans." In all your con- tentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of "Black Re- publicanism" 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 pa- tient 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
28 SPEECHES IFeb. 27
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 prin- ciple 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 de- nounced as such. Meet us, then, on the ques- tion 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 mo- ment's consideration.
Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against sectional parties given by Wash- ington in his Farewell Address. Less than eight years before Washington gave that warning, he
i860] AT COOPER UNION 29
had, as President of the United States, approved and signed an act of Congress enforcing the pro- hibition of slavery in the Northwestern Terri- tory, which act embodied the policy of the gov- ernment upon that subject up to and at the very moment he penned that warning; and about one year after he penned it, he wrote Lafayette 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 sectional- ism has since arisen upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, or in our hands against you? Could Washing- ton 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, de- structive, or something of the sort. What is con- servatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick
* The passage in Washington's Farewell Address which most explicitly warns against sectionalism is as follows :
"It is of infinite moment that you should properly esti- mate the immense value of your National Union to your collective and individual happiness, that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it ; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity ; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety ; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of any at- tempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the •various parts."
3o SPEECHES [Feb. 27
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 dis- agree 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 Ter- ritories through the judiciary ; some for the "gur- reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastic- ally called "popular sovereignty" ; but never a man among you is in favor of Federal prohibition of slavery in Federal Territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the govern- ment under which we live." Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advo- cate 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 ques- tion 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 inno- vation ; and thence comes the greater prominence
i860] AT COOPER UNION 31,
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 de- signedly aided or encouraged the Harper's Ferry affair, but still insist that our doctrines and dec-, larations necessarily lead to such results. We do not believe it. We know we hold no doctrine, and make no declaration, which were not held to and made by "our fathers who framed the gov- ernment 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 elec- tions. The elections came, and your expectations were not quite fulfilled. Every Republican man
32 SPEECHES [Feb. 27
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 con- tinual protest against any interference whatever writh 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 anything 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 sim- ply 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 in- surrection, 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 South- ampton was 'got up by Black Republicanism." In the present state of things in the United
* In August, 1831, at Southampton, Va., Nat Turner, a negro, led an insurrection of his fellow slaves in the course of which more than sixty white people, most of them women and children, were massacred. _ The Abolitionists were charged with instigating the rising, but their historians deny the allegation, and no proof has come to light of their connection with the crime.
i860] AT COOPER UNION S3
States, I do not think a general, or even a very extensive, slave insurrection is possible. The in- dispensable concert of action cannot be attained. The slaves have no means of rapid communica- tion ; nor can incendiary freemen, black or white, supply it. The explosive materials are every- where 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 mis- tresses; 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 ex- ception to it, but a case occurring under pecu- liar 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, be- trayed the plot to that friend, and, by conse- quence, averted the calamity. Occasional poi- sonings from the kitchen, and open or stealth/ assassinations in the field, and local revolts ex- tending 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 peace- ably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil
34
SPEECHES [Feb.
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 restrain- ing 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 assassi- nation 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. Or- sini's attempt on Louis Napoleon,* and John Brown's attempt at Harper's Ferry, were, in their philosophy, precisely the same. The eager- ness to cast blame on old England in the one
* Felice Orsini was chief of a band of desperadoes that attempted the life of Napoleon III. on January 14, 1858. The plot had been hatched in London, and many French- men bitterly charged the British with complicity in the crime.
i860] AT COOPER UNION
35
case, ana 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 po- litical 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 ?
* Hinton R. Helper, a North Carolinian, wrote, in 1857, "The Impending Crisis of the South : How to Meet It," a book intended to show that slavery was inimical to the interests of the non-slaveholding Southern whites. Of this work, J. F. Rhodes says, in his '"History of the United States from 1850":
"Although the writer's manner was highly emotional, sincerity flowed from his unpracticed pen. The facts were in the main correct ; the arguments based on them, in spite of being disfigured by abuse of the slave-holders, and weakened by threats, of violent action in a certain contingency, were unanswerable. . . . The burden of Helper's argument was that the abolition of slavery would improve the material interests of the South by fostering manufactures and commerce, thus greatly increasing the value of land, the only property of the poor whites, and giving them a larger market for their products. The country and the cities would grow; there would be schools, as at the North, for the education of their children, and their rise in the social scale would be marked. . . . Had the poor whites been able to read and comprehend
36 SPEECHES [Feb. 27
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 as- sumed constitutional right of yours to take slaves into the Federal Territories, and to hold them there as property. But no such right is specific- ally 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 al- lowed to construe and force the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events.
such an argument, slavery would have been doomed to destruction, for certainly seven voters out of ten in the slave States were non-slaveholding whites. It was this consideration that made Southern congressmen so furious, for to retain their power they must continue to hood- wink their poorer neighbors."
The book grew in favor in the North, and in 1859, it was published for propagandist purposes in a cheap edi- tion, which received the written approval of a number of Republican Congressmen, including John Sherman, the can- didate of his party for Speaker. Although Sherman ex- plained that he had signed the indorsement by proxy in a moment of thoughtlessness, he could not dissipate the distrust of moderate Republicans whose votes were neces- sary for his election. A long contest ensued, which Sher- man ended by retiring in favor of William Pennington of New Jersey, who was thought to be more conservative. Mr. Pennington was promptly elected.
In 1861 Lincoln appointed Helper consul to Buenos Ayres.
i860] AT COOPER UNION 37
This, plainly stated, is your language. Per- haps you will say the Supreme Court has de- cided the disputed constitutional question in your favor. Not quite so. But waiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum and decision, the court has decided the question for you in a sort of way. The court has 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 rea- sons 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 state- ment 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 "dis- tinctly 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 any- thing else — "expressly," that is, in words mean- ing 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
38 SPEECHES IFeb. 27
"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 contempo- raneous 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 prop- erty 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 themseves 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 govern- ment 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
i860] AT COOPER UNION
39
Union ; and then, you say, the great crime of hav- ing 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 will be a mur- derer!"
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 de- struction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in principle.
A few words now to Republicans. It is ex- ceedingly 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 un- conditionally surrendered to them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against us, the Territories are scarcely men- tioned. Invasions and insurrections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrec- tions? We know it will not. We so know, be- cause we know we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections ; and yet this total
40 SPEECHES IFeb. 27
abstaining does not exempt us from the charge ?.nd 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 con- vince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly pro- tested 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 our- selves 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
i36o] AT COOPER UNION 41
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 de- clare 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. De- manding 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 con- stitutions 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
42 SPEECHES [Mar. 5
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 af- ford 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 con- trivances 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 be- seeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sin- ners, but the righteous to repentance; such as invocations to Washington, imploring men to un- say what Washington said and undo what Wash- ington 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.
i860] AT HARTFORD 43
Slavery the Enemy of the Free Workingmen.
Abstract of Speech at Hartford, Conn. March 5, i860.
Slavery is the great political question of the nation. Though all desire its settlement, it still remains the all-pervading question of the day. It has been so especially for the past six years. It is indeed older than the Revolution — rising, subsiding, then rising again, till '54, since which time it has been constantly augmenting. Those who occasioned the Lecompton imbroglio now admit that they see no end to it. It had been their cry that the vexed question was just about to be settled — "the tail of this hideous creature is just going out of sight." That cry is played out, and has ceased.
Why, when all desire to have this controversy settled, can we not settle it satisfactorily? One reason is, we want it settled in different ways. Each faction has a different plan — they pull dif- ferent ways, and neither has a decided majority. In my humble opinion, the importance. and mag- nitude of the question is underrated, even by our wisest men. If I be right, the first thing is to get a just estimate of the evil ; then we can provide a cure.
One-sixth, and a little more, of the popula- tion of the United States are slaves, looked upon as property, as nothing but property. The cash value of these slaves, at a moderate estimate, is $2,000,000,000. This amount of property value has a vast influence on the minds of its owners, very naturally. The same amount of property would have an equal influence upon us if owned in the North. Human nature is the same — people
44 SPEECHES [Mar. 5
at the South are the same as those at the North, barring the difference in circumstances. Public opinion is founded, to a great extent, on a prop- erty basis. What lessens the value of property is opposed; what enhances its value is favored. Public opinion at the South regards slaves as property, and insists upon treating them like other property.
On the other hand, the free States carry on their government on the principle of the equality of men. We think slavery is morally wrong, and a direct violation of that principle. We all think it wrong. It is clearly proved, I think, by natural theology, apart from revelation. Every man, black, white, or yellow, has a mouth to be fed, and two hands with which to feed it — and bread should be allowed to go to that mouth without controversy.
Slavery is wrong in its effect upon white peo- ple and free labor. It is the only thing that threatens the Union. It makes what Senator Seward has been much abused for calling an "ir- repressible conflict." When they get ready to settle it, we hope they will let us know. Public opinion settles every question here ; any policy to be permanent must have public opinion at the bottom — something in accordance with the philosophy of the human mind as it is. The property basis will have its weight. The love of property and a consciousness of right or wrong have conflicting places in our organization, which often make a man's course seem crooked, his conduct a riddle.
Some men would make it a question of in- difference, neither right nor wrong, merely a question of dollars and cents; — the Almighty
i860] AT HARTFORD 45
has drawn a line across the land, below which it must be cultivated by slave labor, above which by free labor. They would say : "If the question is between the white man and the negro, I am for the white man; if between the negro and the crocodile, I am for the negro." There is a strong effort to make this policy of indifference prevail, but it cannot be a durable one. A "don't care" policy won't prevail, for everybody does care.
Is there a Democrat, especially one of the Douglas wing, but will declare that the Declara- tion of Independence has no application to the negro? It would be safe to offer a moderate premium for such a man. I have asked this question in large audiences where they were in the habit of answering right out, but no one would say otherwise. Not one of them said it five years ago. I never heard it till I heard it from the lips of Judge Douglas. True, some men boldly took the bull by the horns and said the Declaration of Independence was not true! They didn't sneak around the question. I say I heard first from Douglas that the Declaration did not apply to the black man. Not a man of them said it till then — they all say it now. This is a long stride toward establishing the policy of indifference — one more such stride, I think, would do it.
The proposition that there is a struggle be- tween the white man and the negro contains a falsehood. There is no struggle. If there was, I should be for the white man. If two men are adrift at sea on a plank which will bear up but one, the law justifies either in pushing the other off. I never had to struggle to keep a negro
46 SPEECHES [Mar. 5
from enslaving me, nor did a negro ever have to fight to keep me from enslaving him. They say, between the crocodile and the negro, they go for the negro. The logical proportion is, therefore, as a white man is to a negro, so is a negro to a crocodile, or as a negro may treat the crocodile, so the white man may treat the negro. The "don't care" policy leads just as surely to na- tionalizing slavery as JefT Davis himself, but the doctrine is more dangerous because more in- sidious.
If the Republicans, who think slavery is wrong, get possession of the General Govern- ment, we may not root out the evil at once, but may at least prevent its extension. If I find a venomous snake lying on the open prairie, I seize the first stick and kill him at once; but if that snake is in bed with my children, I must be more cautious; — I shall, in striking the snake, also strike the children, or arouse the reptile to bite the children. Slavery is the venomous snake in bed with the children. But if the ques- tion is whether to kill it on the prairie or put it in bed with the other children, I am inclined to think we'd kill it.
Another illustration. When for the first time I met Mr. Clay, the other day in the cars, in front of us sat an old gentleman with an enormous wen upon his neck. Everybody would say the wen was a great evil, and would cause the man's death after a while; but you couldn't cut it out, for he'd bleed to death in a minute. But would you ingraft the seeds of that wen on the necks of sound and healthy men? He must endure and be patient, hoping for possible relief. The wen represents slavery on the neck of this country.
i860] AT HARTFORD 47
This only applies to those who think slavery is wrong. Those who think it right would con- sider the snake a jewel and the wen an ornament.
We want those Democrats who think slavery wrong, to quit voting with those who think it right. They don't treat it as they do other wrongs — they won't oppose it in the free States, for it isn't there; nor in the slave States, for it is there; — don't want it in politics, for it makes agitation; not in the pulpit, for it isn't religion; not in a tract society, for it makes a fuss — there is no place for its discussion. Are they quite consistent in this?
If those Democrats really think slavery wrong, they will be much pleased when earnest men in the slave States take up a plan of gradual eman- cipation, and go to work energetically and very kindly to get rid of the evil. Now let us test them. Frank Blair tried it; and he ran for Congress in '58, and got beaten. Did the Democracy feel bad about it? I reckon not. I guess you all flung up your hats and shouted, "Hurrah for the Democracy !"
He went on to speak of the manner in which slavery was treated by the Constitution. The word "slave" is nowhere used; the supply of slaves was to be prohibited after 1808; they stopped the spread of it in the Territories ; seven of the States abolished it. He argued very con- clusively that it was then regarded as an evil which would eventually be got rid of, and that they desired, once rid of it, to have nothing in the Constitution to remind them of it. The Repub- licans go back to first principles, and deal with it as a wrong. Mason, of Virginia, said openly that
48 SPEECHES [Mar. 5
the f ramers of our government were anti-slavery. Hammond, of South Carolina, said, "Washington set this evil example." Bully Brooks said, "At the time the Constitution was formed, no one supposed slavery would last till now." We stick to the policy of our fathers.
The Democracy are given to bushwhacking. After having their errors and misstatements con- tinually thrust in their faces, they pay no heed, but go on howling about Seward and the "irrepressible conflict." That is bushwhacking. So with John Brown and Harper's Ferry. They charge it upon the Republican party, and ignominously fail in all attempts to substantiate the charge. Yet they go on with their bush- whacking, the pack in full cry after John Brown. The Democrats had just been whipped in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and seized upon the unfortu- nate Harper's Ferry affair to influence other elections then pending. They said to each other, "Jump in ; now's your chance" ; and were sorry there were no more killed. But they didn't suc- ceed well. Let them go on with their howling. They will succeed when by slandering women you get them to love you, and by slandering men you get them to vote for you.
Mr. Lincoln then took up the Massachusetts shoemakers' strike, treating it in a humorous and philosophical manner, and exposing to ridicule the foolish pretense of Senator Douglas — that the strike arose from "this unfortunate sec- tional warfare." Mr. Lincoln thanked God that we have a system of labor where there can be a strike. Whatever the pressure, there is a point where the workman may stop. He didn't pre- tend to be familiar with the subject of the shoe
i860] AT HARTFORD 49
strike — probably knew as little about it as Sena- tor Douglas himself. Shall we stop making war upon the South ? We never have made war upon them. If any one has, he had better go and hang himself and save Virginia the trouble. If you give up your convictions and call slavery right, as they do, you let slavery in upon you — instead of white laborers who can strike, you'll soon have black laborers who can't strike.
I have heard that in consequence of this "sec- tional warfare," as Douglas calls it, Senator Mason, of Virginia, had appeared in a suit of homespun. Now, up in New Hampshire, the woolen and cotton mills are all busy, and there is no strike — they are busy making the very goods Senator Mason has quit buying! To carry out his idea, he ought to go barefoot! If that's the plan, they should begin at the foundation, and adopt the well-known "Georgia costume," of a shirt-collar and pair of spurs:
It reminded him of the man who had a poor, old, lean, bony, spavined horse, with swelled legs. He was asked what he was going to do with such a miserable beast — the poor creature would die. "Do?" said he. "I'm going to fat him up; don't you see that I have got him seal- fat as high as the knees?" Well they have got the Union dissolved up to the ankle, but no further !
All portions of this Confederacy should act in harmony and with careful deliberation. The Democrats cry "John Brown invasion." We are guiltless of it, but our denial does not satisfy them. Nothing will satisfy them but disinfect- ing the atmosphere entirely of all opposition to slavery. They have not demanded of us to yield
5o SPEECHES [Mar. 6
the guards of liberty in our State constitutions, but it will naturally come to that after a while. If we give up to them, we cannot refuse even their utmost request. If slavery is right, it ought to be extended; if not, it ought to be re- stricted— there is no middle ground. Wrong as we think it, we can afford to let it alone where it of necessity now exists ; but we cannot afford to extend it into free territory and around our own homes. Let us stand against it!
The "Union" arrangements are all a humbug — they reverse the scriptural order, calling the righteous, and not sinners, to repentance. Let us not be slandered or intimidated to turn from our duty. Eternal right makes might; as we understand our duty, let us do it!
Slavery the Snake in the Union Bed.
Speech at New Haven, Conn. March 6, i860.
Mr. President and Fellow-citizens of New Haven: If the Republican party of this nation shall ever have the national house intrusted 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 the way of its 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 ques- tion of slavery was more important than any
i860] AT NEW HAVEN 51
other ; indeed, so much more important has it become that no other 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 housekeeping to all time ; the question of management of financial affairs ; the question of the disposition of the public domain; how shall it be managed for the pur- pose 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 con- trol of the government. Yet just now they can- not even obtain a hearing, and I do not purpose 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 housekeeping. 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 ac- complish the common object.
In the beginning of the year 1854, a new policy
52 SPEECHES [Mar. 6
was inaugurated with the avowed object and confident promise that it would entirely and for- ever 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 prom- ised that it would wholly end all agitation, con- stantly insisted, down to the time that the Lecompton bill was introduced, that it was work- ing 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 v/as not pre- dicted 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 ques- tion and it is now forever settled" ? But since the Lecompton bill, no Democrat within my experi- ence 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 sub- ject 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 some- thing 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 as
i860] at new haven
53
closely as the natural wants attach to our natural bodies. Now I think it important that this mat- ter 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 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 settle- ment of the question. The two great parties, each in national convention, adopted resolutions declaring that the settlement made by the com- promise of 1850 was a finality — that it would last forever. Yet how long before it was un- settled 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 fault about them. There must be some in- adequacy in their very nature to the purpose for which they were designed. We can only specu- late as to where that fault — that inadequacy is, but we may perhaps profit by past experience.
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 settle- ments have proved so temporary, so evanescent.
Look at the magnitude of this subject. One sixth of our population, in round numbers — not
54 SPEECHES [Mar. 6
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 slave- holder 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 by the reply, "I can't see it so." He opened the Bible and pointed him to 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 billions of dollars, and that is a pretty thick coating. Cer- tain it is that they do not see it as we see it. Certain it is that this two thousand million of dol- lars invested in this species of property is all so concentrated that the mind can grasp it at once. This immense pecuniary interest has its influence upon their minds.
i860] AT NEW HAVEN
55
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 slave as well as to ourselves ; that the class of argu- ments put forward to batter down that idea are also calculated to break down the very idea of 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 Ter- ritories, 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, re- quire 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 forever 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
56 SPEECHES [Mar. 6
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: What ever endangered this Union save and except slavery? Did any other thing ever cause a mo- ment'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 philosophical public 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
i860] AT NEW HAVEN 57
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 possess 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 near- est 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 circum- stances, 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
5 8 SPEECHES .[Mar. 6
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 upon 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 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 indiffer- ence. 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 it into to- bacco. All recognize this policy, the plausible sugar-coated name of which is "popular sover- eignty."
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 in- dividual, whether he thought slavery right or wrong — and he is the only man in the nation
:S6o] AT NEW HAVEN
59
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 in- different, and it can therefore have no durability or permanence.
But suppose it could! Then it can be main- tained 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 Com- promise! 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 a 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
60 SPEECHES [Mar. 6
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 Declara- tion 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 in- cluded. 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 the white man and the negro," etc., which, I know, came from the same source as this policy — that saying marks another step. There is a false- hood 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 an 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 nar- row plank, where 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
i860] AT NEW HAVEN 6r
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 in- difference 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 free men 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 Ter- ritories may care. They are to decide, and they may think what they please ; it is a matter of dol- lars 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 free-
62 SPEECHES [Mar. 6
dom 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 a wrong, but you renounce all attempts to restrain it. Is there anything else that you think wrong, that you are not willing to deal with as a 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 allow it to be even 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 other societies, because those are such unsuitable places, and there is no single place, according to you, where this wrong can properly be called wrong.
Perhaps you will plead that if the people of the slave States should of themselves set on foot an effort for emancipation, you would wish them success and bid them God-speed. Let us test
i860] AT NEW HAVEN 63
that! In 1858 the emancipation party of Mis- souri, 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 de- pending 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 after-
64 SPEECHES [Mar. 6
ward adopted as their own act by the first Con- gress held under that Constitution, of which many of the framers were members — they pro- hibited the spread of slavery in the Territories. Thus the same men, the framers of the Consti- tution, cut off the supply and prohibited the spread of slavery; and both acts show conclu- sively that they considered that the thing was wrong.
If additional proof is wanting, 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 lan- guage 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 Constitu- tion used the very clearest, shortest, and most direct language. But the Constitution alludes tc? slavery three times without mentioning it once! The language used becomes ambiguous, round- about, and mystical. They speak of the "im- migration of persons," and mean the importation of slaves, but do not say so. In establishing a basis of representation they say "all other per- sons," 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 didn'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 sys-
i860] AT NEW HAVEN 65
tern 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 the approaching triumph of the Republicans in the bearing of their political adversaries. A great deal of this 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 argu- ments.
There is "the irrepressible conflict." How they rail at Seward for that saying! They re- peat 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 senti- ment, 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. Pry or, editor of the Richmond Enquirer, uttered the same sentiment in almost the same language, and yet so little offense did it give the Democrats that he was sent for to Wash- ington to edit the States — the Douglas organ there, while Douglas goes into hydrophobia and spasms of rage because Seward dared to repeat
66 SPEECHES [Mar. 6
it. That 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 insur- rections; 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 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 in- excusable 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 as- sertion 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 encour- aged 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 declara- tions 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
i860] AT NEW HAVEN 67
glee ; there was no sorrow for the killed nor for the peace of Virginia disturbed; you were re- joicing 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 noth- ing 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 cir- cumstances, 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 pre- vent 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
68 SPEECHES [Mar. 6
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, maul- ing rails, at work on a flatboat — just what might happen to any poor man's son. I want every man to have the 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 true 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 n^t another such place on earth ! I desire that if you get too thick here, and find it hard to better your condi- tion on this soil, you may have a chance to strike out and go somewhere else, where you may not be degraded, nor have your family 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 ceaseless 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 some- thing that you are now doing. What is it ? You
i860] AT NEW HAVEN 69
must stop thinking slavery wrong. Let your in- stitutions 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 de- grade you. Are you ready to get back the trade on these 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 dissolu- tion 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 the Southern trade, they will simply get their names on the white list, and then instead of persuading Repub- licans to do likewise, they will be glad to keep you away. Don't you see they thus shut 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
7°
SPEECHES [Mar. 6
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 did 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 con- clusion ; 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,
i860] AT NEW HAVEN 7i
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 chal- lenge? No? Then you really believe that the principle which our fathers who framed the gov- ernment 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 Wash- ington 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 pro- hibition of slavery in the Northwestern Terri- tory, which act embodied the policy of govern- ment upon that subject up to and at the very moment he penned that warning; and about one year after he penned it, he wrote Lafayette that he considered that prohibition a wise measure, expressing in the same connection his hope that we should some time have a confederacy of free States.
Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectional- ism 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
72 SPEECHES [Mar. 6
conservative — while we are revolutionary, de- structive, or something of that 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 sub- stitute shall be ; you have considerable variety of new propositions and plans, but you are unani- mous 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 "great principle" that if one man would enslave another, no third man should object, fan- tastically 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 gov- ernment under which we live. Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our govern- ment 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 har- mony one with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though much pro- voked, let us do nothing through passion and ill
i860] AT NEW HAVEN 73
temper. Even though the Southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmly con- sider 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 sub- ject 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 un- conditionally 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. Wre so know because we know we never have 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 experi- ence 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 pro- tested our purpose to let them alone ; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike un- availing 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
74 SPEECHES [Mar. 6
thoroughly — done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated — we must place our- selves avowedly with them. Douglas's new sedi- tion law must be enacted and enforced, suppress- ing 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 he ran because he was oppressed, and declare that he was stolen off. Whenever a master cuts his slaves with the 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 they have not as yet in terms demanded the overthrow of our free-State con- stitutions. 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 de-
i860] AT NEW HAVEN 75
manded, 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 con- summation. Holding, as they do, that slavery is morally right and socially elevating, they cannot cease to demand 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 con- stitutions 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 for-
76 SPEECHES [Mar. 9
bids 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 — contriv- ances 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.
"Popular Sovereignty" the Sugar-Coated Slavery Pill.
Abstract of Speech at Norwich, Conn. March 9, i860.
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 the question settled — wish it out of the way.
i860] AT NORWICH 77
It stands in the way and prevents the adjust- ment and the giving of necessary attention to other questions of national housekeeping. The people of the whole nation agree that this ques- tion 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.
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 compromise of 1850 was declared to be a full and final settle- ment of the question. The two great parties, each in national convention, adopted resolutions declaring that the settlement made by the com- promises of 1850 was a finality — that it would last forever. Yet how long before it was un- settled 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 fault about them. There must be some inade- quacy in their very nature to the purpose for which they were designed. We can only specu- late as to where that fault — that inadequacy is, but we may perhaps profit by past experience.
I think that one of the causes of these re- peated failures is that our best and greatest men have greatly underestimated the size of this question. They have constantly brought for- ward small cures for great sores — plasters too small to cover the wound. This is one reason that all settlements have proved so temporary, so evanescent.
78 SPEECHES [Mar. 9
Look at the magnitude of this subject. About one sixth of the whole population of the United States are slaves. The owners of the 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.
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. 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. Now these two ideas, the property idea that slavery is right, and the idea that it is wrong, come into collision, and do actually pro- duce that irrepressible conflict which Mr. Seward has been so roundly abused for mentioning. The two ideas conflict, and must conflict.
There are but two policies in regard to slavery that can be at all maintained. The first, based upon the property view that slavery is right, con- forms to the idea throughout, and demands that we shall do everything for it that we ought to do if it were right. The other policy is one that squares with the idea that slavery is wrong, and it consists in doing everything that we ought to
i860] AT NORWICH 79
do if it is wrong. 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.
Now I have spoken of a policy based upon the idea that slavery is wrong, and a policy based upon the idea that it is right. But an effort has been made for a policy that shall treat it as neither right nor wrong. Its central idea is in- difference. It holds that it makes no more dif- ference to me whether the Territories become free or slave States than whether my neighbor stocks his farm with horned cattle or puts it into tobacco. All recognize this policy, the plausible sugar-coated name of which is "popular sovereignty."
Mr. Lincoln showed up the fallacy of this policy at length, and then made a manly vindica- tion of the principles of the Republican party, urging the necessity of the union of all elements to free our country from its present rule, and closed with an eloquent exhortation for each and every one to do his duty without regard to the sneers and slanders of our political opponents.
8o SPEECHES [May 19
Reply to the Committee Informing Him of His Nomination for President by the Chicago Convention.
May 19, i860.
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Com- mittee: 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 in- separable from this high honor — a responsibility which I could almost wish had fallen upon some one of the far more eminent men and experi- enced statesmen whose distinguished names were before the convention — I shall, by your leave, consider more fully the resolutions of the convention, denominated the platform,* and without any unnecessary or unreasonable delay respond to you, Mr. Chairman, in writing, not doubting that the platform will be found satis- factory, 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 President.
Letter to George Ashmun and Others.
Springfield, III. May 23, i860. Hon. George Ashmun,
President of the Republican National Con- vention. Sir: I accept the nomination tendered me by
* See succeeding pages.
i860] REPUBLICAN PLATFORM 81
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 ap- proval; 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.
PLATFORM
Resolved, That we, the delegated representatives of the Republican electors of the United States, in con- vention assembled, in the discharge of the duty we owe to our constituents and our country, unite in the fol- lowing declarations:
i. That the history of the nation during the last four years has fully established the propriety and necessity of the organization and perpetuation of the Republican party; and that the causes which called it into existence are permanent in their nature, and now, more than ever before, demand its peaceful and constitutional triumph.
2. That the maintenance of the principles promul- gated in the Declaration of Independence and em- bodied in the Federal Constitution is essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions, and that
82 SPEECHES [May i9
the Federal Constitution, the rights of the States, and the union of the States, must and shall be preserved.
3. That to the union of the States this nation owes its unprecedented increase in population, its surprising development of material resources, its rapid augmenta- tion of wealth, its happiness at home, and its honor abroad; and we hold in abhorrence all schemes for dis- union, come from whatever source they may. And we congratulate the country that no Republican member of Congress has uttered or countenanced the threats of disunion so often made by Democratic members with- out rebuke and with applause from their political as- sociates; and we denounce those threats of disunion, in case of a popular overthrow of their ascendancy, as denying the vital principles of a free government, and as an avowal of contemplated treason, which it is the imperative duty of an indignant people sternly to re- buke and forever silence.
4. 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 accord- ing 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 among the gravest of crimes.
5. That the present Democratic administration has far exceeded our worst apprehensions in its measure- less subserviency to the exactions of a sectional in- terest, as especially evinced in its desperate exertions to force the infamous Lecompton constitution upon the protesting people of Kansas, in construing the personal relation between master and servant to involve an unqualified property in persons; in its attempted en- forcement everywhere, on land and sea, through the intervention of Congress and of the Federal courts, of the extreme pretensions of a purely local interest; and in its general and unvarying abuse of the power intrusted to it by a confiding people.
6. That the people justly view with alarm the reckless extravagance which pervades every department of the Federal Government; that a return to rigid economy and accountability is indispensable to arrest the sys- tematic plunder of the public treasury by favored
i860] REPUBLICAN PLATFORM 83
partisans; while the recent startling developments of frauds and corruptions at the Federal metropolis show that an entire change of administration is imperatively demanded.
7. That the new dogma that the Constitution, of its own force, carries slavery into any or all of the Ter- ritories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with contemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent; is revolu- tionary in its tendency, and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country.
8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that "no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property with- out due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the au- thority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any Territory of the United States
9. That we brand the recent reopening of the African slave-trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversion of judicial power, as a crime against humanity and a burning shame to our country and age; and we call upon Congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic.
10. That in the recent vetoes, by their Federal gov- ernors, of the acts of the legislatures of Kansas and Nebraska prohibiting slavery in those Territories, we find a practical illustration of the boasted Democratic principle of non-intervention and popular sovereignty embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and a demon- stration of the deception and fraud involved therein.
11. That Kansas should, of right, be immediately ad- mitted as a State under the constitution recently formed and adopted by her people, and accepted by the House of Representatives.
12. 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
84 SPEECHES [Aug. 14
to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country; and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the working-men liberal wages, to agriculture remunerating prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor, and enterprise, and to the nation com- mercial prosperity and independence.
13. That we protest against any sale or alienation to others of the public lands held by actual settlers, and against any view of the free-homestead policy which regards the settlers as paupers or suppliants for public bounty; and we demand the passage by Congress of the complete and satisfactory homestead measure which has already passed the House
14. That the national Republican party is opposed to any change in our naturalization laws, or any State legislation by which the rights of citizenship hitherto accorded to immigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad.
15. That appropriations by Congress for river and harbor improvements of a national character, required for the accommodation and security of an existing com- merce, are authorized by the Constitution and justified by the obligation of government to protect the lives and property of its citizens.
16. That a railroad to the Pacific Ocean is im- peratively demanded by the interests of the whole country; that the Federal Government ought to render immediate and efficient aid in its construction; and that, as preliminary thereto, a daily overland mail should be promptly established.
17. Finally, having thus set forth our distinctive principles and views, we invite the cooperation of all citizens, however differing on other questions, who substantially agree with us in their affirmance and support.
i860] AT SPRINGFIELD 85
The Cause, Not the Man.
Remarks at Springfield, III. August 14, i860.
My Fellow-citizens: I appear among you upon this occasion with no intention of making a speech.
It has been my purpose since I have been placed in my present position to make no speeches. This assemblage having been drawn together at the place of my residence, it appeared to be the wish of those constituting this vast assembly to see me ; and it is certainly my wish to see all of you. I appear upon the ground here at this time only for the purpose of affording my- self the best opportunity of seeing you, and en- abling you to see me.
I confess with gratitude, be it understood, that I did not suppose my appearance among you would create the tumult which I now witness. I am profoundly grateful for this manifestation of your feelings. I am grateful, because it is a tribute such as can be paid to no man as a man ; it is the evidence that four years from this time you will give a like manifestation to the next man who is the representative of the truth on the questions that now agitate the public ; and it is because you will then fight for this cause as you do now, or with even greater ardor than now, though I be dead and gone, that I most pro- foundly and sincerely thank you.
Having said this much, allow me now to say that it is my wish that you will hear this public discussion by others of our friends who are present for the purpose of addressing you, and that you will kindly let me be silent.
86 SPEECHES [Feb. n
Charity Towards Political Opponents.
Remarks at Springfield, III., at a Celebra- tion of His Election. November 20, i860.
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 rejoic- ings, 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 com- mon 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.
Political Opponents in the Cabinet.
Editorial in the Illinois Journal. December 12, i860.
We hear such frequent allusions to a supposed purpose on the part of Mr. Lincoln to call into his cabinet two or three Southern gentlemen from the parties opposed to him politically, that we are prompted to ask a few questions.
First. Is it known that any such gentleman of character would accept a place in the cabinet?
Second. If yea, on what terms does he sur- render to Mr. Lincoln, or Mr. Lincoln to him, on the political differences between them ; or do they enter upon the administration in open opposition to each other?
i86i] AT INDIANAPOLIS 87
Farewell to Home Folks.
Remarks to Springfield Neighbors on Leav- ing for Washington. February ii, 1861.
My Friends: No one, not in my situation, can appreciate my feeling of sadness at this parting. To this place, and the kindness of these people, I owe everything. Here I have lived a quarter of a century, and have passed from a young to an old man. Here my children have been born, and one is buried. I now leave, not knowing when or whether ever I may return, with a task before me greater than that which rested upon Wash- ington. Without the assistance of that Divine Being who ever attended him, I cannot succeed. With that assistance, I cannot fail. Trusting in Him who can go with me, and remain with you, and be everywhere for good, let us confidently hope that all will yet be well. To His care com- mending you, as I hope in your prayers you will commend me, I bid you an affectionate farewell.
The Preservation of the Union : It Rests with the People.
Remarks at Indianapolis, Ind. February ii, 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 magnificent reception, and as such
88 SPEECHES [Feb. 12
most heartily do I 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 inseparably, my hearty cooperation. While I do not expect, upon this occasion, or until I get to Washington, to attempt any lengthy speech, I will only say that to the salvation of the Union there needs but one single thing, the hearts of a people like yours. When the people rise in mass in behalf of the Union and the liberties of this country, truly may it be said, "The gates of hell cannot prevail against them." In all trying posi- tions in which I shall be placed, and doubtless I shall be placed in many such my reliance will be 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 peo- ple 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 appeal to you again to constantly bear in mind that 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 ?
i86i] BEFORE INDIANA LEGISLATURE 89
The Union: Is It a Marriage Bond or a Free Love Arrangement?
Remarks to the Indiana Legislature, at Indianapolis. February 12, 1861.
Fellow-citizens of the State of Indiana: I am here to thank you much for this magnificent wel- come, 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 month 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, that we do not misunder- stand the meaning of those who use them. Let us get 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 words. What then, is "coercion"? What is "invasion"? Would the marching of an army into South Carolina with- out the consent of her people, and with hostile in- tent toward them, be "invasion"? I certainly think it would ; and it would be "coercion" also \i the South Carolinians were forced to submit. But if the United States should merely hold and retake its own forts and other property, and col- lect 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
9o SPEECHES [Feb. 12
professed lovers of the Union, but 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 in- vasion of a State? If so, their idea of means tot preserve the object of their great affection would seem to be exceedingly thin and airy. If sick, the little pills of the homeopathist would be much too large for them 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 only 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, by the bond, we all recognize. That position, however, a State can- not 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 ruin all which is larger than itself. If a State and a county, in a given case, should be equal in extent of terri- tory, and equal in number of inhabitants, in what, as a matter of principle, is the State better than the county? Would an exchange of names be an exchange of rights upon principle? On what rightful principle may a State, being not more than one fiftieth part of the nation in soil and population, break up the nation and then coerce a proportionally larger 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 any- thing; I am merely asking questions for you to consider. And now allow me to bid you farewell.
i85i] AT CINCINNATI 91
Good Will to the South.
Remarks at Reception by the Mayor and Citizens of Cincinnati, Ohio. February 12, 1861.
Mr. Mayor, Ladies, and Gentlemen: Twenty- four hours ago, at the capital of Indiana, I said to myself I have never seen so many people as- sembled 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 recep- tion 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 am reminded by the address of your worthy mayor that this reception is given not by any one political party, and even if I had not been so reminded by his Honor I could not have failed to know the fact by the extent of the multitude I see before me now. I could not look upon this vast assemblage without being made aware that all parties were united in this reception. This is as it should be. It is as it should have been if Senator Douglas had been elected. It is as it should have been if Mr. Bell had been elected ; as it should have been if Mr. Breckinridge had been elected ; as it should ever be when any citizen of the United States is con- stitutionally elected President of the United States. Allow me to say that I think what has occurred here to-day could not have occurred in any other country on the face of the globe, with-
92
SPEECHES [Feb. 12
out the influence of the free institutions which we have unceasingly enjoyed for three quarters of a century.
There is no country where the people can turn out and enjoy this day precisely as they please, save under the benign influence of the free in- stitutions of our land.
I hope that, although we have some threaten- ing national difficulties now — I hope that while these free institutions shall continue to be in the enjoyment of millions of free people of the United States, we will see repeated every four years what we now witness.
In a few short years I, and every other indi- vidual man who is now living, will pass away ; I hope that our national difficulties will also pass away; and I hope we shall see in the streets of Cincinnati — good old Cincinnati — for centuries to come, once every four years, her people give such a reception as this to the constitutionally elected President of the whole United States. I hope you shall all join in that reception, and that you shall also welcome your brethren from across the river to participate in it. We will welcome them in every State of the Union, no matter where they are from. From away South we shall extend them a cordial good will, when our present difficulties shall have been forgotten and blown to the winds forever.
I have spoken but once before this in Cin- cinnati. That was a year previous to the late presidential election. On that occasion, in a playful manner, but with sincere words, I ad- dressed 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
1861] AT CINCINNATI 93
could postpone that result longer by nominating Senator Douglas for the presidency than they could in 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 now I wish to recall their at- tention 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, 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 to interfere with your in- stitutions ; 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 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 ac- cordingly."
Fellow-citizens of Kentucky ! — friends ! — 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.
And now, fellow-citizens of Ohio, have you,
94 SPEECHES [Feb. 12
who agree with him who now addresses you in political sentiment — have you ever entertained other sentiments toward our brethren of Ken- tucky than those I have expressed to you? If not, then why shall we not, as heretofore, be recognized and acknowledged as brethren again, living in peace and harmony again one with an- other ? I take your response as the most reliable evidence that it may be so, trusting, through the good sense of the American people, on all sides of all rivers in America, under the providence of God, who has never deserted us, that we shall again be brethren, forgetting all parties, ignor- ing all parties. My friends, I now bid you fare- well.
Against Restriction of Immigration.
Remarks to Germans at 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 dif- ficulties, which expresses, as you have said, the views of the gentlemen present, I shall have to beg pardon for not entering fully upon the ques- tions 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 pur- sue. I hope, then, not to be false to anything that you have to expect of me.
i860] AT CINCINNATI 95
I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that the working-men are the basis of all governments, for the plain reason that they are the more numerous, and as you added that those were the sentiments of the gentlemen present, represent- ing 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 coun- tries.
Mr. Chairman, I hold that while man exists it is his duty to improve not only his own condi- tion, but to assist in ameliorating 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 country is extensive and new, and the countries of Europe are densely popu- lated, if there are any abroad who desire to make this the land of their adoption, it is not in my
96 SPEECHES [Feb. 14
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.
"Nothing is Going Wrong."
Remarks to the Legislature of Ohio at Columbus. February 13, 1861.
Mr. President and Mr. Speaker, and Gentle- men 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 dif- ficulties of the country I should have gained a
i86i] AT STEUBENVILLE 97
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 circum- stance, 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.
The Majority Should Rule.
Remarks 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 understand- ing 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 ma- jority of the American people ; if not, then the
98 SPEECHES [Feb. 15
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 con- demnation will occur in four years' time. Then I can be turned out, and a better man with better views put in my place.
For Equalization of Foreign and Domestic Prices by a Protective Tariff.
Remarks at Pittsburg, Pa. February 15, 1861.
I most cordially thank his Honor Mayor Wil- son, and the citizens of Pittsburg generally, for their nattering 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 some- thing 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 them- selves. The condition of the country is an ex- traordinary one, and fills the mind of every pa- triot with anxiety. It is my intention to give this
i86i] AT PITTSBURG
99
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, con- trary 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 expecta- tion 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 smil- ing] , 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 in- volved, 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 cir- cumstances, is to keep cool. If the great Ameri- can 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
loo SPEECHES [Feb. 15
longer on this subject than I intended at the out- set.
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 ques- tion of national housekeeping. It is to the gov- ernment what replenishing the meal-tub is to the family. Ever-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 in- sists 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 plat- form there is a plank upon this subject which should be a general law to the incoming admin- istration. 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 Sec- tion 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 in- terest 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 reward for
i86i] AT PITTSBURG 101
their skill, labor, and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperty and independence.
Mr Lincoln resumed : As with all general prop- ositions, doubtless there will be shades of differ- ence 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 Pennsyl- vania, 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 un- natural and injurious one, and ought gradually, if not rapidly, to be removed. The condition ot the treasury at this time would seem to render an early revision of the tariff indispensable. Ine Morrill [tariff] bill, now pending before Con- gress, 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. It, however, it shall not pass, I suppose the whole subject will be one of the most pressing and im- portant for the next Congress. By the Constitu-
102 SPEECHES [Feb. 15
tion, 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 edu- cation 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.
The Crisis is Artificial.
Remarks at Cleveland, Ohio. February 15, 1861.
Fellow-citizens of Cleveland and Ohio: We have come here upon a very inclement afternoon. We have marched for two miles through the rain and the mud.
The large numbers that have turned out under these circumstances testify that you are in ear- nest about something, and what is that something ? I would not have you suppose that I think this extreme earnestness is about me. I should be exceedingly sorry to see such devotion if that were the case. But I know it is paid to some-
i86i] AT CLEVELAND 103
thing wort1! more than any one man, or any thou- sand or ten thousand men. You have assembled to testify your devotion to the Constitution, to the Union, and the laws, to the perpetual liberty of the people of this country. It is, fellow-citi- zens, for the whole American people, and not for one single man alone, to advance the great cause of the Union and the Constitution. And in ?. country like this, where every man bears on his face the marks of intelligence, where every man's clothing, if I may so speak, shows signs of com- fort, and every dwelling signs of happiness and contentment, where schools and churches abound on every side, the Union can never be in danger. I would, if I could, instill some degree of patriot- ism and confidence into the political mind in rela- tion to this matter.
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 excite- ment. I think the crisis, as it is called, is alto- gether an artificial one. 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, although quite enough of you did for all practical purposes, to be sure.
What they do who seek to destroy the Union is altogether artificial. What is happening to hurt them ? Have they not all their rights now as they ever have had ? Do not they have their fugi- tive 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
104 SPEECHES [Feb. 16
any power to change that position? [Cries of "No!"] What then is the matter with them? Why all this excitement? Why all these com- plaints? As I said before, this crisis is alto- gether artificial. It has no foundation in fact. It can't be argued up, and it can't be argued down. Let it alone, and it will go down of itself.
I have not strength, fellow-citizens, to ad- dress you at great length, and pray that you will excuse me; but rest assured that my thanks are as cordial and sincere for the efficient aid which you will give to the good cause in working for the good of the nation, as for the votes you gave me last fall.
There is one feature that causes me great pleasure, and that is to learn that this reception is given, not alone by those with whom I chance to agree politically, but by all parties. I think I am not selfish when I say this is as it should be. If Judge Douglas had been chosen President of the United States, and had this evening been passing through your city, the Republicans should have joined his supporters in welcoming him just as his friends have joined with mine to-night. If we do not make common cause to save the good old ship of the Union on this voy- age, nobody will have a chance to pilot her on another voyage.
To all of you, then, who have done me the honor to participate in this cordial welcome, I return most sincerely my thanks, not for myself, but for Liberty, the Constitution, and Union.
I bid you an affectionate farewell.
1861] AT BUFFALO 105
The Stability of the Union.
Remarks at Buffalo, N. Y. 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 com- pany 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 my- self, 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 perpetu- ity of the liberties of this country. I am unwill- ing 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 per- sonally. 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
106 SPEECHES [Feb. 19
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